-
Political spectrum: 1 -------------------- 0 monopoly no monopoly
-
Funnier still, if you look closely you'll see he actually refuted himself: "First, we had the gold standard which failed miserably in 1933 and the U.S. lost most of it's gold. It didn't matter that our money was "supposedly" backed by gold, the problem was that the exponential growth of debt out-grew the amount of gold in
-
[quote user="DrKrbyLuv"] [quote user=" Snowflake wrote: "] Debt grows exponentially in the REGULATED SUPER FIAT BANKING system. No one is denying that. [/quote] You have come to half the truth which is a big step. You're right in agreeing that debt will grow exponentially. But then you fumble in describing our current system
-
Reed is stuck in the monopoly paradigm. Also in the territorial paradigm. But how many libertarians aren't?
-
[quote user="Zavoi"]It is not necessary (from the point of view of the libertarian) to categorically disprove emotivism (or non-cognitivism or whatever -ism), because there is nothing about emotivism per se that is inconsistent with libertarianism. Emotivism as such has nothing to say about libertarianism. It is only when the emotivist begins
-
[quote user="Adam Knott"] The law of gravity, once conceived, does not mean that therefore, everyone must place their objects at the center of the earth. The law of gravity means that if you want to move your object away from the center of the earth, then there is a price to pay (the exertion necessary to affect this change, etc.) Likewise
-
[quote user="Wikipedia"]According to [Kant's] reasoning, we first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions when we attempt to universalize them. The moral proposition A : "It is permissible to steal" would result in a contradiction in conceivability. The notion of stealing presupposes the
-
[quote user="mouser98"] The Lockean standard is a method that we can use , in the absence of a higher authority, to establish the priority of claims for any particular thing to see who has the superior claim and therefore the right to consider himself the owner. Thus it does objectively determine the rightful ownership of a thing.[/quote]
-
Would a monopoly be more likely or less likely to "shave coins"? Also, interest being bad thing was refuted long ago and more succinctly a few weeks ago here . By the way, can I borrow $2,000 from you? I'll sign a legally binding contract to pay it back in full in 5 years. What say you?
-
[quote user="SilentXtarian"]I was wondering if we could have digital currencies that all of our currency problems could be solved.[/quote] In combination with a few other technologies , I think yes. From the link: " Digital gold currency in combination with public-key cryptography may soon make it impossible for any government to monitor