Article Image
News Link • Federal Reserve

Central Banks 'Good', Ron Paul 'Bad'?

• thedailybell.com - Staff Report
 

Dominant Social Theme: Central banks are good and Ron Paul doesn't know what he's talking about.

Free-Market Analysis: Recently, the National Review Online responded to libertarian Congressman Ron Paul's criticism of central banking. Why anyone would want to defend central banks is beyond us, but Ponnuru, a leading young conservative thinker has taken on the task.

The US is the world's dominant superpower, and the US central banking system is part of how the US as an entity has afforded its current dominance. Since 1971, the world has been on a dollar gold standard, reinforced by the determination of Saudi Sheiks to sell oil for nothing but dollars.

Of course, one could hardly blame the Sheiks. Muammar Gaddafi announced that he wanted to place Africa on a quasi-gold standard and not more than a year later he was dead along with most of his family and his regime deposed.

29 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Now, now. Keep it civil.

However, I do have a bit of a technical question for y'all.

When you login (logon?) using all those different Username type aliases, do you need to do it with separate browsers? Or does it work well with just a single browser? That is, are the cookies all accepted in workable fashion in the same browser?

Thanks for all the support. I went and looked "Gene Kernan" of The American Republic up in YouTube, and he has some wonderful, if short, videos out there. And it seems that he is starting a series. I can't wait for his next one - #3.

Looks like Jim Hendrickson of losthorizons.com would have had great success if he had followed all of Gene's info. And what Gene is starting to do is to advertise a bit. He should follow some of Jim's advertising examples. Of course, he just might get way more business than he can handle that way.

By the way, the price of Gene's CD, "How to Stop the IRS" has gone way up since 2001. It was $400 back then. I think it is $1,295 now. So you'd better hurry to get yours before the next price increase.
  

Comment by Arty Choke
Entered on:

Ufactdirt … Panocha … you got him, teehehe! heh! heh! ha! ha! ho! ho! he, he!

 

Comment by Courtney Jalospanis
Entered on:

He is really an ignorant hillbilly, Panot. He doesn’t know what he is saying.  He didn’t know that when he was a baby born in U.S.A. he was automatically an American citizen. He thought that his American birthright citizenship is like circumcision. He was not born circumcised, until somebody cut his foreskin. Then that was the only time he called himself a circumcised baby boy!

 

Comment by Ana Panot
Entered on:

You really have an IQ problem, me amorrree .... What kind of stupidity is that? To LEGALLY avoid paying income tax, don’t earn or don’t have any income? When you have no income, you legally avoid paying income tax? What a jerk are you?

 

You can normally avoid peeing, by not urinating. Don’t drink anything and you will not urinate. Don’t drink and don’t eat anything at all – nothing at all, for at least one week, and you can normally avoid going to the toilet.  And you know why? Because by that time, you are dead, bimbo!

 

Same as what you think, no income, no income tax. No income, no eat. Unless you are a parasite feeding yourself with somebody else’s income who is paying taxes, or when you live in a mental asylum. There you can LEGALLY avoid paying income tax.  Okay, boy? Now, my poor baby, take your medicine.

 

 

 

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

I understand your concern.

If private, paralegal research groups popped up as frequently as bridge clubs, bingo groups, poker parties, and all the other kinds of recreation groups, and if they did serious legal research, freedom would legally come back to America, Big Government would be cut down to size, and 99% of the lawyers would no longer have a job.

So, I DO understand your concern. You might have to go out and find a different job.

Go to The American Republic website at http://www.theamericanrepublic.com/ and click on the blinking STOP SIGN. Find out how a bunch of serious paralegal researchers discovered that IRS law does not apply to the legally properly positioned State Citizen. They found this along with a whole bunch of other law, and put together in information form, the things that people need to DO to LEGALLY stop paying income taxes.

Did you get that word "LEGALLY?" It means "legally" within the law. And it has to do with State Citizenship as found IN THE LAW. Not as some "sovereign citizen" as described in some so-called FBI statement.

If anybody is in doubt about paying income taxes, there is one simple way that EVERYONE can see that paying income taxes is not required legally. All a person need do to legally NOT pay income taxes is to NOT earn any taxable income. And if the word "taxable" throws anyone off, simply don't earn any income at all. No income taxes on no income, right? So, everybody can see that it is possible to legally stop paying income taxes even without all kinds of paralegal study.

All Ron Paul wants to do is to correct the make-believe income tax requirement by removing the income taxes altogether, formally and directly, along with their host operation, the IRS, which receives its authority through the Federal Reserve Bank money creation system, a bank and system that should never have been brought into existence in the first place, and should be dissolved as soon as possible.
 

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

How does the term "Sovereign Citizen" as used in the statement:

"Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or 'sovereign' from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement,"

in any way equate to a Sovereign State Citizen as designated in the "... flow of "Black Letter Law" regarding citizenship ..." that is described in some way in the State laws of all the States? It's in the laws. Just because it is not often used, doesn't mean that it doesn't have the effect of law.

Leave it to a lawyer to try to twist the meanings and their applications.
 

Comment by Joseph Vanderville
Entered on:

Okay, you are right Panocha -- and also a hardcore "sovereign citizen" Homeland Security is about to snatch in a raid.

Comment by Ana Panot
Entered on:

Brag, I am absolutely right. This guy doesn't deserve your attention. You are just wasting your time in trying to help him. I think with him, you are not only confronting a scatterbrain but also obviously dealing with an IQ problem.

Comment by Boston Releigh
Entered on:

PureTrust, you still don’t get the meaning of "sovereign citizen" that the FBI declared as the third kind of terrorist [which you are]. Here, I will quote it for you once again, and please use your contact lens or wear your eyeglasses:

FBI: "Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or "sovereign" from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement." That’s exactly who and what you are.

You foolishly argue with me when you say to me that, I quote: "At the time of birth within a State, a person is NOT automatically a U.S. citizen. You go fly a kite, or go to school before you say this to me again. Look here -- I may suspect that you are a son of ILLEGAL aliens, i.e.,Mexican parents, because you sound like one – but I may say to you that when you are born in this country, you are AUTOMATICALLY an AMERICAN BORN U.S. CITIZEN just seconds after you are excreted out of the womb of your illegal alien Mexican mother. The United States adopts the doctrine of Jus Soli citizenship, as opposed to Jus Sanguinis. It is called a "birthright citizenship".

Oh … what’s the use. Please go to school, be a lawyer at least like myself so that you can be in the same wave link with me when you discuss legal issues like this. I am tired of picking up anyone from the gutter and hold him high enough to be at par with my level of education and knowledge. Learn some more before you engage me with your useless if not foolish arguments.

Your tutorship time has expired. You no longer will hear any response from me. I have already wasted so much time. You have no opening in your mind where this learning process I afforded to you may have an access for your self-improvement. Now I am looking again for someone to engage in the discussion of important issues that are of interest to the public.

 
Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

It seems that there are a whole bunch of commenters, here, that don't want to be sovereign citizens. If you are not sovereign, who writes your comments for you and orders you to post them? If you are not citizens, are you here on green cards? or simply illegally?

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Again, brag,we are in agreement in much of we say, but not everything.

Your, "You can have ALL kinds of "citizenship laws" within the State, but against U.S. Citizenship, that’s INVALID," is absolutely correct. Why you brought it up is the question. State citizenship and U.S. citizenship are not against each other. By their natures, and the State/U.S. relationships, they can't be opposed to each other.

"An American citizen is a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES -- not a citizen of Utah or Idaho where you might have come from," is not necessarily true. At the time of birth within a State, a person is NOT automatically a U.S. citizen. This is the reason that SS numbers are given to babies so fast, right in the hospital. This gives the appearance of U.S. citizenship to someone who would NOT even legally appear to be a U.S. citizen otherwise.

"To call yourself a Citizen of Idaho or Utah and not a Citizen of the United States ...," is something that the United States did for everybody born in one of the several States. They did it right in the Organic Laws of the States, at the time they granted each State its statehood. Read the laws in the creations of the States.

If you were born in one of the several States (and not on land ceded to the United States by the State), then you are NOT a U.S. citizen within the 50 States. The fact that the U.S. Government, or State Governments, happen to accept as true some paperwork that says you are a U.S. citizen, doesn't change anything. When you follow the flow of "Black Letter Law" regarding citizenship, United States citizenship for most Americans is a blatant lie, even though they don't know it, would be quick to suggest otherwise. American citizenship is a whole different animal. The words in the law mean what they say. They can't be glossed over, or interpreted outside their meaning.

Number 2, "Right after 911, with a joint Executive-Congress approval, this country declared to the whole world a War on Terror," is something that the United States could not do and remain within the limitations of the Constitution at the same time. The whole official 9/11 story has so many holes in it that it is one of the greatest fabrication failures that the world has seen. It is right up there with the great lies that Satan, himself, tells to all people.

As far as your #3 goes, the term "sovereign citizen" has so many meanings, so many applications to people with different beliefs and/or political or religious aspirations, that it doesn't really have any meaning at all, when stated by you or the FBI in the simple fashion that it has been stated. For example, when you were in the military, you were not a sovereign in many ways. You had to wear the socks they ordered you to wear, and do all kinds of other things they ordered, as well. The only time you had a choice in it is when they allowed you to have a choice in it.

Now that you are out of the military, you have your choice of the socks that you can wear. You can wear white, or brown, or cotton, or wool, or silk, or whatever. And you don't have to wear them on your feet if you don't want. (Please pardon my crudity if you happen to be among those who lost legs in action. No offense meant.) This freedom of choice extends through thousands of things in your life. The point is, you are sovereign in this action of choosing and deciding many of the things of life. That is part of the definition of sovereignty - the freedom to choose freely. And, you are a citizen, aren't you, at least of something? So, YOU ARE A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN. Watch out for the FBI.
 
FREEDOM! Vote Ron Paul 2012. If he isn't on the ballot, write him in. Record the event on your cell-cam if you can get away with it.

Comment by Joseph Vanderville
Entered on:

Simple, Bayag. Ernie just points a finger to Powell Gammill as the one who said what PureTrust has quoted, and say to the FBI -- It is not I who said that. I am sure Gammill being loyal, wouldn't mind. By his nature, it is natural to expect that he would take a bullet for Mr. Hancock. JV

Comment by Arty Choke
Entered on:

I'm late. What's going on?

Aha, I see. You are naughty, JV. How about Mr. Ernest Hancock. Since PureTrust exposed him as a "sovereign citizen" what do you suggest as his alibi?  Dump him?

Comment by Joseph Vanderville
Entered on:

I am watching you, even as you write your comments, folks. Don't get envious, Panocha. PureTrust wants a date with you. If I were you, I will focus on that. He needs you as an alibi, when the FBI comes around and ask him where he was the night before. JV

Comment by Ana Panot
Entered on:

 I join you, Kodigo. Brag is teaching somebody a "lesson". Does he deserve that "lesson"? I am envious.

Comment by Conrad Krosky
Entered on:

Brag, you are teaching somebody a good lesson here. I want to know you and read more about you, and listen more to what you say. Your comment is very refreshing when what we read in this space are all "kill ... kill and kill" the Government.

Comment by Boston Releigh
Entered on:

PureTrust, I will help you again by pointing to you where you are wrong and correct you: [1] Yours: "…you are incorrect if you mean that States do not have non-Federal citizenship laws within their own State. You would, also, be incorrect if you meant that States do not have non-Federal Citizenship laws within their own State."

You can have ALL kinds of "citizenship laws" within the State, but against U.S. Citizenship, that’s INVALID. An American citizen is a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES -- not a citizen of Utah or Idaho where you might have come from. To call yourself a Citizen of Idaho or Utah and not a Citizen of the United States [because you do not recognize the Federal Government in the erroneous belief that you have your own], fits exactly the national security definition of a "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" – a terrorist.

[2] Yours: The United States doesn't have any legal authority over foreign terrorists who are NOT United States citizens, and NOT within the United States, except by treaty with some other nation wherein the terrorists reside. This does not mean that the United States never acts outside the scope of its authority."
You are terribly wrong again. Your scope of knowledge on this matter is so limited. You should not have been so rush and reckless … you should have checked the records first. Right after 911, with a joint Executive-Congress approval, this country declared to the whole world a War on Terror. In that declaration, ANY country HARBORING or HIDING terrorists that we were looking for – including Osama bin Ladin the U.S. Government was hunting like an animal that he deserved – is the ENEMY of the United States. We do not need a treaty with any country that harbors terrorists we want to bring to justice. That country is an enemy of the United States. We are in a STATE OF WAR on Terror. We fight, kill and capture terrorists as war combatants outside of the U.S. territory – even if they are hiding in the Moon or Mars or in any other planet. Do you now understand, PureTrust, my dear friend? In this State of War, the United States does not act "outside the scope of its authority" as you ignorantly stated.

[3] Yours: "…you make the assumption that I am a ‘sovereign citizen’." Wrong again. No, I did not assume. I don’t have to. You just described yourself that you are. What’s the matter – scared that to the FBI you are terrorist? In incriminating yourself as a "sovereign citizen", a.k.a. terrorist, you involved Ernest Hancock by quoting him as anti-Government, thus calling the attention of the FBI that he, like you, is also a "sovereign citizen" who wants a central bank of your own. This is what you said: "As Ernie used to say, Government bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. It's the Government that takes away from our freedom to expand our central bank…exactly what the FBI declared as a "sovereign citizen" fighting the Government.

Do I need to say more to make you understand that you were so wrong and need to freshen up, regroup, and straighten up? ….Your friend always, Brag…

 
Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Well, brag, we are not in disagreement in many of the areas in which we are speaking. We may simply not understand what the other is speaking about.

When you say, "But citizenship is a Federal Law of the United States – it is NOT a State Law, which you did not understand or perhaps didn’t even know," that is a very broad statement. First, any citizenship laws that the United States has, only apply to citizens of the United States. Also, you are incorrect if you mean that States do not have non-Federal citizenship laws within their own State. You would, also, be incorrect if you meant that States do not have non-Federal Citizenship laws within their own State.

As far as your, "Federal laws apply to ALL CITIZENS of the United States living in ALL STATES and abroad, ..." that is absolutely correct as I see it. And that wasn't the point at all. The point revolved around the question of who is a citizen or Citizen of what.

As far as the, "... and especially to terrorists, ... foreign," part, the United States doesn't have any legal authority over foreign terrorists who are NOT United States citizens, and NOT within the United States, except by treaty with some other nation wherein the terrorists reside. This does not mean that the United States never acts outside the scope of its authority.

In your schooling, you must have skipped the parts about reading the actual laws, and what they actually say.

In your "You consider yourself a 'sovereign citizen'," part, you make the assumption that I am a sovereign citizen. Didn't you say that you were in the military? Isn't one of the first rules that they teach you, not to assume anything?

Regarding the FBI terrorist report, haven't you noticed that they are trying to get people to assume that they have authority in areas that they don't? Haven't you seen that they are attempting to attack the heart and core of FREEDOM, the foundation our great nation was built upon. Are you becoming one of the terrorists by attacking freedom along with them?

Comment by Conrad Krosky
Entered on:

If you ask me, this open forum is a rich fishing ground for the FBI shadowing those dangerous "Sovereign Citizens". It is only by the mouth that the fish is hooked.

Comment by Boston Releigh
Entered on:

Attn.: Ernie [because PureTrust is quoting you ...]

PureTrust, you must understand that an AMERICAN CITIZEN is subject to and under the jurisdiction of Federal and State laws. But citizenship is a Federal Law of the United States – it is NOT a State Law, which you did not understand or perhaps didn’t even know. It does not mean that because you live in one particular State of the United States Federal laws do not apply to you. Federal laws apply to ALL CITIZENS of the United States living in ALL STATES and abroad, and especially to terrorists, domestic or foreign.

Even though I am a retired military man, I went to school to know this fundamental difference. I don’t want to be ignorant and be laughed at. I think you should do likewise so that you don’t appear ridiculous or due to the ignorance that you are exhibiting in your comment, you do not make yourself the butt of a joke.

You are talking of a "sovereign citizen", which in your confused mind, is a "State Citizen of the State" that is NOT a "United States Citizen". Where in hell did you get that I can only speculate [which by using intelligence parlance you will not like to hear]. You explained a convoluted mumbo-jumbo around it but it did not make your horrendous mistake right.

You consider yourself a "sovereign citizen". Do you know what a "sovereign citizen" is? A terrorist. I will educate you with this part of the FBI Report:

"Domestic Terrorism
The Sovereign Citizen Movement

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310

Domestic terrorism—Americans attacking Americans because of U.S.-based extremist ideologies—comes in many forms in our post 9/11 world.

To help educate the public, we’ve previously outlined two separate domestic terror threats—eco-terrorists/animal rights extremists and lone offenders.

Today, we look at a third threat—the "sovereign citizen" extremist movement. Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or "sovereign" from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement."

 
Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Do the laws of Japan apply to people living in America who have no commitments of any sort to Japan? Do German laws apply to the U.S. or vice versa? Which of our laws apply to Colombia, or Chile, or South Africa, or Australia, or China, or Russia, etc.? Which of their laws apply to people in America?

Do United States laws apply to Americans? Or do they only apply to "United Statesians?" Are you an American? Or are you a United Statesian?

The laws of the United States apply only to the United States. They do not apply to the individual, Sovereign States that are united, except in limited ways.

If you tell the United States Government that you are a United States citizen, then you better be ready to obey their laws. Why? Because you just told them that you are under their jurisdiction. If you are a State Citizen, and NOT a United States citizen, you fall into the position of a Sovereign Citizen over your sovereign State.

This whole thing has to do with WHAT you have told to both your State and the United States, and HOW you have told it to them, THROUGH the paperwork and agreements you have signed or acknowledged with them. This includes the Social Security application signing. And it includes the ways you have acknowledged your birth certificate. And it includes everything in between, like the drivers license.

The point about the agreements is that they are very ambiguous, not at all clear as to whom they are applying and the way that they apply. Even though they have a name listed on them that looks like your name, they may not be referring to you, the human being, at all. They may be referring to a corporation-like artificial entity - considered a person by Government. Since the United States Government sees nothing but the paperwork, they are willing to accept that the human being who says that he/she is the one listed on the paperwork is the one in the agreement.

In addition, since Gov didn't explain everything to you in the agreement, there never was a meeting of the minds. There never was an agreement. More below.

When you start your own little central bank in a poker game or bridge party, by using match sticks or tokens as money, why not extend your little central bank to the other things in life? Find out what the laws are for Sovereign State Citizens of your State. Then put together legal declarations - in some cases affidavits - stating that you never meant that you are a United States citizen within your State, that if the United States Government has made such interpretations they are mistaken, but rather you are a State Citizen of the State within whose territorial boundaries you reside, and get yourself out from under the presumption that you are a United States citizen.

Then start your own central bank based on gold and silver, or even match sticks or salt, or anything that has real value.

The peoples of Hawkeye and Oyate have advantages in this area, that they are allowed as members of sovereign nations, already, to get their sovereign nations to start central banking within. Care must be taken.

Care must be taken. One of the best teachers, who can show you what it's all about, and more, is Gene, at "The American Republic" website:

http://www.theamericanrepublic.com/

You can start by perusing the The American Republic website. If Gene isn't overloaded as he usually is, he might be able to help directly, or at least point you in the direction of other paralegals who can help.

Also, look at

http://www.teamlaw.net/

especially, if you are new to all of this,

http://www.teamlaw.net/history.htm

Comment by Conrad Krosky
Entered on:

 "Banking secrecy" is decreed into law. We know that in banking law, not in the study of Medicine. But those very angry anti-Fed hombres who hadn't gone to school to know what it is, thought that's something sinister! Poor little guys crying for help to abolish the Fed. But we can't help them -- that's all what they know.  Not an iota more.

Comment by Christopher Cellone
Entered on:

It is almost unbelievable but true – Ron Paul has no idea why there is a law on banking secrecy. He insists in "auditing" the Fed – which will never happen. In a sentence, the purpose of the law is to prevent "panic" – the most dangerous cause of bankruns, and eventually banking and financial collapse. Is he aware of this? I don’t think so. Politicians in Congress would turn the monetary operations of the Feds into acrimonious public debates … into a political dogfight, and the Media like sharks in a feeding frenzy. The stock market would be the first casualty, and the banking system wouldn’t survive.

"Dr. Paul says the Federal Reserve should be eliminated, or at least audited, because it prints money, thereby devaluing the dollar. Fortunately, he hasn't eliminated the Fed, which could cripple the economy. Monetary policy is needed to adjust liquidity and control inflation. Without this guidance, investors would lose trust in financial markets, increasing volatility. Expectations of inflation would cause it to spiral out of control. Ending the Fed would isolate the U.S. from global trade, since central bankers coordinate economic policy between countries." Advice to Ron Paul and supporters from a colleague in economics graduate school  ...let's just call him for now Mr. Ph.D., Anonymous.

 

Comment by Joseph Vanderville
Entered on:

Ron Paul’s advocacy to return to the gold standard is purely based on lack of understanding how monetary policy works. It is difficult to understand how this could be endorsed blindly. We know that the gold standard was totally abandoned long time ago by the United States and the Bretton Woods Agreements because in sum, "gold standard is inferior to fiat currency backed by a central banking" aside from the danger it creates in the economy.

For instance, raising interest rates slows down the flight of gold, but the result is less money loaned by banks, and the recession it creates exacerbates into depression spreading worldwide as what happened during The Great Depression.

Correcting gold imbalance [it is a volatile commodity] creates financial panic and results in the collapse of the banking system. This historical problem is dissected on record and solutions learned in the study of Advance Economics. Aware of the havoc it would create to the national economy, no economist in his right mind who had earned a Ph.D. in Economics, would recommend going back to the gold standard. More so when a doctor of medicine turns into an overnight monetary expert and now lecturing the American public that the return to gold standard is the only solution to the economic ills of this country.

What surprises me is how callous and shameless are those who pretend to know better than the Chairman of the Federal Reserves on how to run the Fed. What’s itching their mind is to abolish the Fed, aside from angrily recommending to Congress that the Law of Supply and Demand should be amended!

Ignorance or little knowledge is indeed dangerous. This also explains why Ron Paul is "unelectable" -- we must honestly face the truth.

 
Comment by Ernest Hancock
Entered on:

I remember in an interview of Dr. Paul during the 2008 election cycle where the female interviewer was trying to make the point with Dr. Paul that his not participating in the Congressional Retirement plan and the booms in the stock market since he was first elected as a Congressman in the 70's has demonstrated his lack of understanding of the importance of putting faith in the stock market etc.

 

Dr. Paul simply responded with the fact that he has continuously provided for his retirement by the regular purchase of Gold with his money.... So I took a look Spot Gold History   - Ron Paul for the WIN!!!

Comment by Ana Panot
Entered on:

Guys, please don't distract me. I am listening to Dr. PureTrust's, Ph.D., who wants to date with me, on his lecture, re: "Freedom" and "Banking" [whichever in your ringing ears comes first]. I am now changing my vote for president from Dr. Ron Paul, M.D.-Economics, to Dr. PureTrust, Ph.D. -- from what university was that Ufactdirt? Ah, yes, from the University of Hardknock!

 

Comment by Courtney Jalospanis
Entered on:

To Kodigo, my friend ... some monetary specialists from the "edge" can talk about their money "expertise" in a way [see example below] that would put Dr. Bernanke's knowledge of monetary economics to shame! These are "scholars" from what our friend Mr. Tan calls "the University of Hardknocks"... Heh, heh, he, he...

Comment by Conrad Krosky
Entered on:

Ron Paul is NOT QUALIFIED to talk anything about Economics, no more than when a delusional politician who delivers babies thinks that he is better than Dr. Bernanke in Economics or more qualified to talk about gold standard that does not exist, much more talk about central banking, and the abolition of the Federal Reserves. Technical fiscal and monetary specialists get a doctorate in Economics to understand and do those things, and absolutely not when they are delivering babies.

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Freedom good. Central banks good if they allow complete freedom.

Everything in life is centralized. Take a family. A mam, a woman some children. The man and woman should NOT be forced to become "centralized." They should be allowed to get together freely. Once the kids are of age, they should NOT be forced to remain centralized. They should be allowed to freely form their own marriage alliance, and start their own centralization.

Two points regarding money:

1. Freedom should be recognized and allowed in formal banking. The central banks should be allowed to exist, but freedom to form as many central banks as we wish should be allowed. If my little neighborhood wants to get together and form our neighborhood bank, we should be allowed. If others want to do the same, they should be allowed. If people outside our neighborhood want to use our central bank money, they should be allowed. If we want to merge with other little central banks, we should be allowed as long as they freely agree. FREEDOM.

2. We have much of this freedom already. Think of a yard sale, or a garage sale. Tons of swapping goes on there, besides sales using Frns. Poker games use matches or toothpicks rather than money. The poker game becomes a central bank, the matches and toothpicks the money. Somewhat free central banking is all around us.

As Ernie used to say, Government bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. It's the Government that takes away from our freedom to expand our central bank to a size where it might become a threat to Government's favorite central bank, the Federal Reserve Bank.

Let the Fed remain if it wants. It should have freedom. But we should have freedom as much or more than it does.

FREEDOM.


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:


Attorney For Freedom