Wednesday, 25 February 2015
Tuesday, 4 November 2014
The common characteristic of both Fraudulent and Fiat money is that they violate the principle of free association.
They enable the producers of paper money to expand their production through the violation of other people’s property rights. The producer of fiat money sells a product that cannot withstand the competition of free-market moneys such as gold and silver coins, and which the market participants only use because the use of all other moneys is severely restricted or even outlawed.
The most eloquent illustration of this fact is that paper money in all countries has been protected through legal-tender laws. Paper money is inherently fiat money and it cannot thrive but when it is imposed by the state it encourages development of a national currency backed by bank holdings of the state.
Bitcoin was invented to foster this new, digital style of commerce. There is no central bank or authority.
Instead, Bitcoin is a self-monitoring network, spread out between the computers of everyone who uses it.
All transactions are encrypted, verified and logged by other members in an intensive process called mining.
For now, miners are rewarded for their work with new Bitcoins. This is how the currency is being issued into existence. The process will continue until 21 million Bitcoins have been mined, after which no new Bitcoins will be created. Like the fixed quantity of matchsticks soldiers used as money in the prison camps, the fixed supply of Bitcoin will guarantee its scarcity and, presumably, its value.
Initially, there where painfully few merchants willing to accept Bitcoin instead of, well, real money. The few regular companies who do accept it are in it more for the gimmick and publicity than genuine utility. In fact, the only people strongly motivated to use Bitcoin have been those trading illegal goods online (who want to maintain anonymity) and, increasingly, investors but today Bitcoin is widely accepted using web-based exchanges, speculators trade dollars for Bitcoins at one rate, and hopefully the value of Bitcoins goes up from time to time and mostly it does – wildly so, creating more room for investors.
The Bitcoin economy is still quite volatile, and the online exchanges are still small and vulnerable to hacking and manipulation. The irony here, however, is that if Bitcoin succeeds as an investment vehicle it will have failed in its original role as a currency biased toward transaction instead of speculation (velocity over growth). Because if the currency is hoarded by investors instead of traded between people, it won’t have lived up to the dream of offering an alternative to expensive bankers’ money. And if no one is using it for anything real, its value will go down, taking the portfolios of its investors down along with it.
Banking in Africa is fraudulent whenever bankers sell uncovered or only partially covered money substitutes that they present as fully covered titles for money.
These bankers sell more money substitutes than they could have sold if they had taken care to keep a full percent reserve for each substitute they issued. Credit expansion financed through printing money is in practice the very opposite of a way to combat the economic establishment.
It is the preferred means of survival for an establishment that cannot, or can no longer; sustain the competition of its competitors.
However, it’s trivial for law enforcement to follow cash into the bitcoin maze and, presumably track the goods as they leave.
This is both good and bad: bad because the bitcoin proponents see the eyes of government as tools of great evil and good because it ensures that business could (but may not) begin accepting bitcoin because it was always designed as a proof-of-concept rather than a real monetary exchange and that people can take cash from it is as happy accident.
The goal, then, is to make Bitcoin as easy as transferring funds from bank to bank and account to account as well as educating the consumer about its benefits.
Monday, 3 November 2014
President Obama is the “most racist president there has ever been in America,” according to American political and economic commentator Ben Stein.
The economist and actor appeared on Fox News’ America News Headquarters on Sunday to discuss Obama’s domestic economic policies, which Stein says are racially dividing America.
“This president is the most racist president there has ever been in America,” Stein said to Fox’s Shannon Bream.
“He is purposely trying to use race to divide Americans.”
He also pointed out that the number of Americans on welfare has vastly increased during Obama’s presidency and that the cuts to welfare programs have been miniscule despite claims by Democrats that the cuts, spearheaded by Republicans, are hurting minorities.
“More people are on food stamps than ever,” Stein said.
“More people are getting welfare than ever.”
“What cuts are they talking about?”
“More people are getting subsidized healthcare than ever,” he continued.
“What cuts are they talking about?”
“It’s all a way to racially divide voting in this country.” Stein also rejected the Obama administration’s claim that they are not using race to divide Americans.
“They’re handing out pamphlets about this – and it’s been described a lot in the Wall Street Journal – [that say] ‘look, the Republican candidates are targeting President Obama because he’s black and you’re black, so you gotta go out and support him,” he stated.
“That’s just nonsense.”
“The Republicans are the most pro-black party there’s ever been.” “The Republicans are the ones who passed all the civil rights laws back in the 60s, not the Democrats,” he added.
Saturday, 13 September 2014
Recently the Ghana finance ministry announced a massive budget deficit causing a whole cipher of chaos in the economy and instead of government to reduce spending and taxes to encourage a greater economic growth and set off all necessary measures to pay down the national dept quick as possible, the contrary is labelled introducing an abnormal percentage increase in Taxation resulting in a dramatic increase in the prices of goods and services. Increasing taxation for people to pay for the welfare of the poor is immoral and indistinguishable from theft which could be replaced with voluntary methods of funding legitimate government functions.
Besides, most government can be provided by private sector businesses, charities and other organisations.
As a matter of fact, I think the Ghana government is sick for imposing trade barriers to violate the rights of cocoa farmers and foreign people to who desire to do trade. The restriction on cocoa exportation against farmers is unfair and has drastically cut down productivity which violates the principle of self owner and right to property. Anarchism holds against government most critical feature that works through force, coersion and compulsion. Those who call themselves legislators to make rules of conduct whereby attaching penalties for violations of such rules impedes on the rights of the individual. The emergence of a fictitious entity by which every one tries to live at the expense of others closely is not a necessity for societal control for the right of individuals make the best use of property. Founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves then even fewer are wise to rule others. Anarchism has greatly liberated men from the phantoms that have held them captive to the doctrines that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations and that the state should be abolished .But the myth that Anarchism is only a sub-culture that has been rooted in working-class struggles ever since the emergence of capitalism makes me want to put the question on board as to whether it is possible and desirable.
What man will be prepared, unless willing to declare himself in bondage would care to call any control agreeable???
Tuesday, 9 September 2014
The aim of liberalism is to create a complex civil society in which the conditions for liberty, safety, and wealth production are created. One can see civil society as being like a healthy body. The body is made up of a large number of different kinds of cells. We have muscle cells, nerve cells, skin cells, hair follicle cells, heart cells, liver cells etc. We have one body made up of a wide variety of cells. The body, as it develops, organizes itself without any sort of central planner. There is nobody outside the body telling the cells where they need to go.
The cells, as they interact and communicate with teach other, figure out where to go and learn what they need to become in order for there to be a healthy body to support the survival of all of the cells. All of the cells interact in a variety of tissues and organs which all work together to create a healthy body. Each of those tissues and organs are necessary for the rest of the tissues and organs and the cells that make them up. You have to have a liver, or the body dies. You have to have a brain, or the body dies. You have to have a spleen, or the body dies. And before the advent of surgery, you had to have a healthy appendix, or the body died. So even things seemingly unimportant have to be kept healthy.
Nowhere is there a system in the body that is necessary to keep the others in line.
They keep themselves in line. Indeed, the closest thing there is to this is the immune system, which fights off foreign invaders and cancers. But even the immune system can become a problem if it starts attacking the body itself – as happens with autoimmune diseases like arthritis.
Cancer is one kind of cell “deciding” the rest of the body ought to be only
that one kind of cell. Leukemia is a cancer of the immune system itself– it is the immune system trying to take over the body. Civil society is similarly made up of a variety of social orders. We have government, the economy, money and finance, technological innovation, science, philosophy, art and literature, religion, philanthropy etc. In a liberal civil society, each has its role, and it is important that each stick to that role. It is also equally important that they properly interact to create a healthy society. One could imagine the government as the immune system. It is there to protect civil society from external dangers and from internal dangers.
However, there is always a danger that it will attack the body (police corruption, bribery of police and politicians, etc.) and that it will become cancerous, trying to take over the entire body (police states, socialist governments, Marxist governments, totalitarian governments, etc.). It is best that the immune system/government stick to its proper role and not try to do the job of, say, the circulatory system/economy. Each has its proper role, and each is necessary to have a healthy body.
You do not have a healthy body if one system is in complete and total control over the rest of the body, or even if one attacks different systems in more subtle ways.
For some reason, people seem to think that government should not regulate, say, the arts and
literature, as that would be censorship, but that it is necessary for the government to regulate the economy. But we are really talking about the government doing the same thing in each case.
We have identical social systems when we are talking about free markets and freely-produced art and literature (and freely produced science, etc.)
The problems created by regulating or controlling one will be found in others when they are regulated or controlled. Central planning of the economy will cause the economy to crash; central planning of money/finance will cause the money supply to boom, and then crash; central planning of art and literature will destroy the culture; central planning of science will end discovery. Indeed, we do not see artists out trying to kill each other over art; we do not see scientists out trying to kill each other over discoveries; and we will not see people out trying to kill each other in a free society with a free market.
Quite the contrary. Freedom of association and interaction and cooperation and competition strongly encourages people to get along. People only kill each other when they see an advantage in doing so. When dealing with a zero- sum game, such as government favors, you can expect hostilities to break out; when dealing with a positive sum game, such as one finds in the free market, you can expect cooperation to break out.
Governments foster division. Freedom fosters cooperation. Sometimes we need to be divided –
who doesn’t want to be separated from rapists, murderers, and thieves? But we should be allowed to cooperate with the cooperative – to the benefit of ourselves and to everyone else as well.
One can either have rule of law or rule of men. Rule of Law means equality under the law: all laws apply to all people equally, whether they are in government, rich, poor, etc. Rule of law also means the rules are general. They have to be able to apply to everyone equally. There cannot be different laws for different groups – whether those groups are based on race, sex, office, etc.
And those laws have to be clear and simple.
There cannot be so many laws that nobody knows what they are, and everyone is always breaking some law at some point. When there are too many laws, they cannot all been forced, and that means you have de facto rule of men, since it then is up to the discretion of the police/government officials as to what laws to enforce, when.
When the laws are such that you end up with rule of men –either de facto or literal – you have the conditions for oppression and the destruction of wealth, culture, knowledge, wisdom, morals, etc.
A good example of this is in the area which has brought down the economy across the world:
central planning of money/finance. Money/finance is one of the most highly regulated orders
in the world, regardless of country. What country doesn’t have a central bank? A central
bank means central planning. And more, central planning means rule of men rather than rule of law. We have a small group deciding how much money there should be, interest rates etc., rather than having these things discovered by large numbers of people across the country and world.
The best laws are those discovered by people in their social interactions. And this includes the
laws of the economy and the laws of money/finance.
Local bankers are much more likely to understand the local situation and respond accordingly. This stabilizes the local economies, which in turn stabilize the country’s economy and the global economy.
Thus would the rule of law – and the discovery of law (rather than the enforcement of legislation) create more stable, stronger economies. With their control over money and finance, our governments weaken our economies and create the conditions for class warfare and social disintegration.
The Alteration of natural order clearly explains that humans are naturally social – but that does not mean we are collectives. There are huge differences between the two. When we view people as social, we understand that their cultures and social environments – friends and families and coworkers, etc., institutions such as families and business structures and property protections (or not) – help individuate us, even as we in turn affect our social environments with our individual characteristics. When we view people as a collective, we demand that they suppress everything in themselves that does not conform to everyone else, to become literally like everyone else. When we do that, we suppress the very things that make people create art and literature, make scientific and medical discoveries, invent new things, find new ways of doing things, create wealth for themselves and others, etc.
Collectivism dehumanizes us, makes us lash out and hate and destroy and kill those who are not like us. As social beings, we interact with many different kinds of people, learn to love and appreciate those differences, and thus expand our moral sphere. Collectives threaten social people everywhere. A free Ghana is and would be threatened by a collectivist of Africa just as America has-been and continues to be threatened by collectivists within who wish to divide us to conquer us