Part 5: My reply to Ellen Brown on "Monetary Reformer Bill Still has put his hat in the presidential race as a Libertarian candidate. What are your thoughts? | LinkedIn"

Hi Ellen,

I hear you; but for me, that's all thinking inside the "capitalist" box. You see, I don't see borrowing. I see funding: just decision-making and accounting/measuring. Who decides? Who decides now?

The bankers used to be pretty "conservative." They aren't anymore. They stopped doing due-diligence about when I decided to get out: 2002-3. I was appalled when cap rates didn't matter anymore in real estate. Brokers were telling me, just go for it. I said that this is a huge bubble that's going to blow up and crash the system. They looked at me as if I had just landed from Mars.

Anyway, you don't get harebrained ideas from citizens working together and being monitored by other groups of citizens all voting about the direction for the local economy and nation. More, not less, due-diligence would occur because everything would be riding on everyone's open participation.

Right now, we vote for others to make the decisions; and they've done a terrible job. What I'm saying is decentralized socialism, frankly. I'm suggesting that everyone is an owner-employee-citizen. The choice they make will be what they reap. What's more, all of the accounting would be open. Where could anybody stash money or go hide and still function in such an open society? The currency would be cyber. The banks would be public. Fund-control would be utterly transparent. No one could go overseas and spend such monies from such accounts. The system wouldn't allow for it.

I'm talking about doing away with secret banking. Think about it. There'd be no more money laundering.

There are many, many examples in the world of employee-owned enterprises that are pretty much in company towns. The difference after implementing what I'm suggesting would be no booms or busts to ruin things and no cutthroat competition from rabid capitalists buying governments to undermine the people's common efforts. There would be no hyper-centralization such that a dictator would arise: no fascism, left, right, or otherwise.

In your radio talk, didn't you say that character loans were as good, or better, than what we have now? Well, what's to prevent character funding where the characters are all of us and we're the one's evaluating the plans?

We aren't stupid. We've just been oppressed by the greedy, who need to be stopped or there's no point to this coercive government.

I'd love for the banksters to just see the light; but with the way things are, they're tempting people to violent revolution. I'm a pacifist and don't want to see the masses get so fed up that they lose it.

You're in a local group, and you have an idea. You have to present it. Other people will have ideas too. The decision has to be consented to, and consensus will be the winning strategy every time. The people will be practical, the way people usually are when they aren't constrained and abused by the selfish and greedy.

If you read the NEED Act with an eye to seeing how it can fund everything, then what competition, what profits? The Act doesn't say housing, food, clothes, etc., verbatim, but it's all implied as there for the people to set up if they want it.

Would you not have liked working all these years in a cooperative-only environment rather than watching the sharks eat the wounded? I know my answer.

So, what am I, a utopian socialist? Utopia is nowhere. That's not what I'm talking about.

Also, I know this all finally leads to a moneyless society: no taxes, no interest, no debts, no money, just provisioning at the highest possible standard/quality of life conceivable. It would be work as pleasure: giving; contributing; getting that good, altruistic feeling.

Thanks for the Seasons Greetings. May I say Merry Christmas early?

Monetary Reform: Series 1

Monetary Reformer Bill Still has put his hat in the presidential race as a Libertarian candidate. What are your thoughts? | LinkedIn.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism, Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.