Banking & Monetary Reform: Addressing Capitalism v. Anti-Capitalism

James [...],

You wrote, "I trust the judgment of unhampered individual actors in the market, working in concert, far more than the judgment of unnamed government officials acting in the "best interest" of the citizens." Why? Just because...? There is no greater reason to trust people out of government more than in government. Walking over the threshold of government doesn't flip a morality switch on going out and off going in.

You want money to be the means by which people vote (unequally). Mammon so-called price discovery isn't inherently superior, or even superior at all, to one-vote-per-person ballot counting.

Unbridled individuals criminally and fraudulently collude ("working in concert," as you called it); and if not for others gathering by their power of collective self-government, those colluding individuals, those frauds, would simply return to being the brutal feudal lords they were. In fact, the more laissez-faire capitalist things are, the more those feudal lords exist as the plutocrats of today, who purchase nearly the only means others have against them: "government."

Crony capitalism doesn't exist because we don't have laissez-faire advocates. Laissez-faire advocates create cronyism because they fear the righteous indignation of the supposed mob that would tar and feather them and run them all out on rails if not simply string them up for the selfish, greedy, amoral, serpents (Jesus's term and I agree with him) that they are.

We don't need more laissez-faire (let-do). We need to free up democracy. Democracy doesn't work right now because it is tied up with capitalism by capitalists who work to keep the people out, to keep the public out, to keep everything they can private, secret, in the dark, to perpetuate their evil, self-gaining schemes against the people.

You are doing the bidding of the Koch brothers, who ironically enough, since you mentioned natural ecology as analogous to the capitalist "market," are about as anti-ecological as one might imagine and would never be stopped by free-market capitalism but short of the people's government (the people themselves stopping that unbridled capitalism), would only be stopped by nature itself revolting against the assault upon it by "unhampered individual actors in the market." Nature is the market and won't continue "buying" it whether the people collectively put a stop to the sale of it or not.

Are you for or against Monsanto? Monsanto buys government to keep it out of the hands of the people for whom it was ostensibly designed by the "Founders." I'm speaking of the US, but the point still applies elsewhere. I say ostensibly because a good number of those Founders were seeking a strong balance for the landed-elite American aristocracy against the supposed less deserving "lower classes": the rest of the citizenry.

Are you for or against mandatory labeling of GMO's? Without it and in an unhampered market, how would you know whether or not something contains what you don't want to eat? Would you simply trust your Monsanto neighbor? I'd rather trust my government that I want to be my government rather than Monsanto's.

Richard [...],

Your comment about "comrades" fails to appreciate that the competition is between competition and cooperation. The laissez-faire is the competitive individual versus the anti-capitalist cooperative/collective. The laissez-faire leaves room for collective effort via private contracts that they can keep secret. Many anti-capitalists leave room for individualism. The anarcho-capitalist seeks a psychological point where only money speaks in the market. Many anti-capitalists seek the point where only non-money speaks and equally and with full transparency.

Which moves closer to the more perfect union? What's the point of reform if we don't move in the right direction? To discuss banking and monetary reform without addressing capitalism versus anti-capitalism is to fail to see the forest for the trees.

James [...] wants to trust his neighbor, but who is his neighbor and whose government is it?

James, you speak as if your neighbor isn't everyone else on the planet, robber barons and elected officials and victims of chemical poisoning from capitalists who are insufficiently regulated because those Koch-brother capitalists have deliberately purchased elected officials because those Koch types haven't been able to get everyone on board with you: the duped (or the shilling?). Hopefully you aren't wittingly shilling for the Plutocrats.

Exactly how would you go about convincing the Kochs not to pollute the planet for their private gain since they are only going to be here a short season and have wanted to get theirs while the getting is still "good"?

If I'm going to bother to sway people, I may as well sway them to the cooperative way rather than the Koch way. Why should the Kochs have a greater say? They've done things they should not have and in so doing, have grossly enriched themselves at the direct, negative expense of the entire planet and everyone else on it. Under a fair democracy, everyone else would simply voice it that those brothers should not do what they have done and that would be that: no more "unhampered individual actors in the market," the Kochs, destroying all the neighbors' place to live.

Do you realize what capitalists are doing right now concerning nanotechnology? http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/7278 Sure, non-capitalists could embark upon such insanity; but if we were to have a real democracy, where everyone would have full knowledge of such ideas before being allowed to be released upon the world, it wouldn't happen – the insanity wouldn't happened. Immorality is, after all, ignorance. That's the enemy: ignorance, not government, per se.

See also:
Monsanto's Seeds of Deception - YouTube
Not Enough: PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economyâ„¢

Donate


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 Monetary Reform. Bookmark the permalink.