Wrong But Definitely Worth Discussing: "WORLD without BANKS," by J.D. Alt

...whereas democratic processes (when properly working) can reasonably direct the production of collective goods, it seems evident that these same processes (even if they are properly working) are not well suited to deciding what and how many private goods and services should be created.

Source: WORLD without BANKS - New Economic PerspectivesNew Economic Perspectives.

The problem with J.D. Alt's assumption is that it is based upon central planning. Central planning is not the way for a democracy to even attempt to regulate the majority of production of goods and services that the people need and want. The local citizenry can decide. The various communities would find their niches and fulfill demand/orders. The communities would replace the so-called private enterprises. In other words, the citizens would own the entities that employ them. It would be privatization in reverse but not consolidated.

It's really that simple.

That's how it used to be before the "lords" showed up to lord it over others, take their commons under pain of death because those lords were simply evil/criminal enough to inflict violence and death on others who weren't willing, or able, to fall to sufficient countervailing evil to kill the would-be lords instead.

Why did J.D. introduce bonds, and what about the many examples of public banks that work as well or better than the private system? See: Argentina and "We Don't Need No Stinking" Interest.

Is J.D.'s post a satire? It describes much of what we have. Is it simply a call for greater, stronger regulation? It sounds it, but I definitely don't think greater, stronger regulation of the type that's been tried before will ever be good enough.

So, unless J.D. can show me how employee/community ownership of the banking system isn't better, I'm sticking to my plan.

---

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)