http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7893717.stm
Those State-worshipers should protest against Richland County Sheriff 's decision not to charge Phelps for his crime against the State - smoking some kind of plant leaf.
The reason for not charging him given by the Sheriff was that he does not has enough evidence. On the other hand, he would have pressed charges if he had enough evidence.
Smoking some kind of plant leaf is a crime against the State?
How nice!
tar, won't you write a very polished letter (with a lot of vocabularies in it) to your favorite paper to protest? If not, what a pity!
- Re: No charges for US swimmer Phelps (BBC)posted on 02/17/2009
What's the fuss? If you are given a parking ticket and you decide to go to court to despute it, the case would be so and so state vs you.
Have you gone loony? - posted on 02/17/2009
I read roughly this critique of libertarianism, and think it would help to cool down the heat a little.
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james/politics/libcrit.txt
The author said: "I've always had an interest in political issues and I consider freedom to be important, thus the libertarian ideology has held a certain fascination for me since it purported to promote liberty yet lead to conclusions at odds with my own beliefs."
So I trust him to be not an enemy of freedom. - posted on 02/17/2009
Let's not talk about any "ism" first. Let's talk about one specific question: why smoking some kind of plant leaf is a crime. Why growing some kind of plant in one's own backyard for his own consumption is a crime?
Someone would say that it is a crime because it harms the person himself who does not.
I ask: I have I stopped doing any physical exercise about twenty years ago; my lack of exercise harmed me; is my not doing any exercise a crime?
Someone would say that those pants could be sold to or given to others to harm other persons.
I ask: how do you know those plants would be sold or given to others before that happens?
My opinion is this: private lives have been gradually taken into the control of the State without too much awareness being aroused in the private residents.
Liberty is lost just like that - without you even being aware of it.
Death and destitute is the destiny if that residents are not aware of that dire consequence. Even without considering any consequence, it is utterly wrong to control private persons' life like that. Except God, who knows better than a person himself does? The State is not God! - Re: No charges for US swimmer Phelps (BBC)posted on 02/17/2009
One problem is: there are too many self-appointed God's errant! - Re: No charges for US swimmer Phelps (BBC)posted on 02/17/2009
要说大麻。咱读过一本书,里面说到美国当年普遍种植hemp,搓绳用
的,织帆布用的,真是麻的功用:矿场要用,海船要用。
Cannabis: A History
http://www.amazon.com/Cannabis-History-Martin-Booth/dp/0312424949/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234888832&sr=8-7
后来,人们在后院种一点大麻就要犯法,是有点。
- posted on 02/17/2009
粗读了一下那篇。好象写得不怎样。
争论的焦点之一是:到底谁更值得信赖:政府里的政客和雇员,还是 居民们自己?
更信赖前者的,支持政府里的人侵犯一些人的财产来分给另一些人。不信赖 前者的
不支持那样的侵犯做法。
不信赖前者的,有他们自己的理由。理由之一是:居民们不能被允许使用侵犯手段
去侵犯别人,谁若侵犯了,政府就可以侵犯他。但是,若允许政府侵犯别人的财产,
那么就没有第二个力量来侵犯政府了(除了革命)。
不信赖前者的,其理由还包括:政府里的人侵犯别人的财产,不仅仅是为了把那财
产分给穷人,多数时候是把财产分给那些比被侵犯的人更富的人们(例如银行家们)。
举个简单的例子:知道联储(Fed) 和 Treasure 之间有时是怎么合作的吗?听说过
Fed open market operation 吗?为何Fed要买旧的联邦政府债券?有的时候,联
邦政府手里缺钱花(它什么时候不缺钱花呢?),Fed就到一个大银行(比如Chase)买
Chase持有的旧国库券(比如$1B),并告诉Chase用那$10B买Treasure的$1B新国库券。
Chase老板不是傻子,知道和Fed合作的好处,就照办了。Treasure一下子就进来了
$10B的钱让联邦政府花。到底是怎么回事呢?那$10B是怎么来的,Fed不是只买了Chase$
1B的旧国库券吗?关键字是:fractional reserve banking. Chase卖给Fed$1B旧国
库券,Chase在Fed的支票帐户上就有了$1B额外的reserve. 按照Fed的规定,一个银
行只要在它在FED的支票帐户里有$1储备,那个银行就可以发出$10的贷款。但没有
几个银行处于被挤兑的顾虑敢于贷出那样比例的款。但是,若CHASE买Treasure $1B新
国库券,它没有那样的顾虑,只坐收那$10B国库券的利息就行了。那么FED用来买CHASE
$1B旧国库券的钱是从哪里来的呢?是从nowhere来的,是从thin air 来的,是它造
出来的。那就是 monetarization of deficit 的概念之一。
在那个例子里,谁是受害者,所有的居民(除了CHASE银行的老板和股东们)都是受害
者,因为他们手里的现金的购买力下降了。政府用它手里的强制力把那些居民的财
产转移到了政府自己的手里和CHASE银行的老板和股东们的手里。
有人说:我宁愿受那样的侵犯,我也不愿意、不忍心看见那些穷人没饭吃,因此我
宁愿政府既然帮助无饭吃的穷人、又帮助CHASE银行的老板和股东们。
本人未说的是:到底是什么造成那些穷人没饭吃的呢?那里没有如同上面所描述的
monetarization of deficit的政府欺骗做法的责任吗?
不懂经济学的(如你),常常是帮着政府骗不懂经济学的人自己(如你)。政府里面的
那些人们最爱你这样的人了,最恨本人这样的人了。但本人也要小心了,政府里的
人们是吃白饭的吗?他们用你们这些热爱政府的人们为了帮助穷人们而热忱交纳的
税金来监视居民的电话电邮等,大概都是为了人们有比较平均的自由(如那文章里所
说的)。
CNDer wrote:
I read roughly this critique of libertarianism, and think it would help to cool down the heat a little.
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james/politics/libcrit.txt The author said: "I've always had an interest in political issues and I consider freedom to be important, thus the libertarian ideology has held a certain fascination for me since it purported to promote liberty yet lead to conclusions at odds with my own beliefs."
So I trust him to be not an enemy of freedom. - Re: No charges for US swimmer Phelps (BBC)posted on 02/17/2009
前面“并告诉Chase用那$10B买Treasure的$1B新国库券” 要改成如下:
“并告诉Chase用 $10B买Treasure的$10B新国库券” - Re: No charges for US swimmer Phelps (BBC)posted on 02/17/2009
有人可能根本不相信(或根本不愿看懂)本人上面描述的monetarization of deficit的
一个例子那样的政府里面的那些人们经常用的“聪明绝顶”的做法。若不相信,就
自己去查资料,看看是否真有那回事。若不想相信,就继续做热爱政府的良民梦(while
your private property is being stolen by those persons in the government
and others who are astronomically wealthy )吧。 - Re: No charges for US swimmer Phelps (BBC)posted on 02/17/2009
有人做了家庭作业后说:你说的不假。但我还是爱政府,因为我知道政府可以只做好
事不做坏事,而且一辈子都做好事(如毛主席说的那样 - 为人民服务)。
本人说:祝你做个好梦。不要太担心你的钱包在变小,也不要担心变小的速度。 - posted on 02/17/2009
touche wrote:
What's the fuss? If you are given a parking ticket and you decide to go to court to despute it, the case would be so and so state vs you.
Have you gone loony?
I liken his desire to regurgitate the undigested food for thought as a bitch in heat. Trouble is, soon people will dismount him for his utter lacking of scintillating stimulation, as in intelligent discourse, you know. ;-)
People in CND grew tired of his idiocy and just ignored him - that's the reason he left I suspect. While it has to run its course here too, in the mean time there is no reason we shouldn't have our little fun with him either. ;-)
- posted on 02/18/2009
" The Left in Power
Daily Article by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. | Posted on 2/17/2009 12:00:00 AM
The theme of my book, The Left, the Right, and the State, is that both sides of the political aisle represent a grave threat to liberty — though each of a different sort. It is like two people tugging at a turkey's wishbone: the turkey is liberty, and you are the bone.
We've lived through eight years of the threat from the Right. It was all about nationalism, militarism, war, torture, state secrets, attacks on privacy, the use of tax funds to subsidize "conservative values," the outsourcing of government in a fascistic business-government partnership, the banning of products and services that government doesn't like, the regimentation of educational life, government impositions in the name of security, and so on.
With the end of the Bush years, many of these threats have receded, if only slightly. Consider the problem of nationalism, for example. The neoconservatives who ran the country during the last two Bush terms exploited this dangerous impulse for all it was worth.
If you were not for their wars, you were against America, and hence deserving of jail without trial. The whole ideological apparatus of the Bush years was profoundly anti-intellectual, and while the neocons shouted down anyone who compared their administration to the Third Reich or Mussolini, the ideological comparison was actually quite apt: right-wing government control stems from the same motives of exalting security, discipline, and chauvinism above liberty.
In two short months, however, that ethos has subsided, and it has been replaced by a threat from the Left. It is tragic that Obama should be president at all. If we had a position called "national well-wisher," "national greeter," or "national symbol of accomplishment," he would be perfect for the job. He is elegant, graceful, and articulate, and he inspires people in an unusual way. As chief policymaker, however, he has revealed himself as nothing more than a two-bit socialist.
After all the ghastly statism of the Bush years, you might think that the Left would back off from using power to achieve its aims. Instead, they have learned nothing. The Left has been lying in wait for its chance. As the Obama people entered the White House, it was as if they found a closet labeled "failed ideas of the past." They opened it and the contents spilled everywhere. They started grabbing things and putting them in the regulatory books and in legislation.
What an amazing pile of junky, worn-out, bogus policy ideas! Equal pay for equal work. Infrastructure spending. More money to the public schools. Socialized medicine. Rock-bottom interest rates. Welfare! Every wish granted by government. Down with business. Down with business failures. Curbs on fat-cat pay. Down with Wall Street. Turn on the money spigots. Expropriate the expropriators. Subsidies for every lifestyle that flies in the face of bourgeois prejudice.
Thus are we again reminded of what a profound threat the Left represents to liberty. It's been more than a decade now since we've seen this at work, and probably longer really. Clinton was a pain, but he was smart enough not to take his reigning ideological framework too seriously. He actually showed some deference to reality from time to time.
The Obamaites are different. They are woefully ignorant of economics. They seem to actually believe all that socialist claptrap that has provided an excuse for innumerable foreign dictators: the idea that government is the source of wealth and can make anything happen with the push of a button.
They see no limits to the possibility that government can make society perfect, righting every perceived social injustice, and bringing prosperity to all via stealing from the haves and giving it to the have-nots. Is there inequality? Mandate equality. Is there deprivation? Provide! Recession? Spend hundreds of billions!
What we have here is not just a profound love of the state; it is a profound confidence in the capacity of the unlimited state to create heaven on earth. How does this square with the idea of human liberty, of social cooperation, and of the rights of all? Herein lies the great mystery of leftism. The Left seems oblivious to the relationship between their chosen means and their ends. It's not that they hate liberty as such; it is that they believe that it must always take a backseat to other social priorities, like equality. In the end, they have a tendency to build the total state and find themselves taken aback when the whole of society ends up in a cage.
Those Obamaites! So compassionate, loving, universally minded, progressive — except that their ideological cousins managed to starve and destroy whole civilizations. Loyalty to their creed means death, because their ideology is the pathway to the gulag — and for one simple reason: their preferred means of social change is the state. The state is always and everywhere a threat to liberty, and liberty is the basic building block of prosperity and civilization.
Despite the slogans about progress, the upshot of the Obama administration is as deeply reactionary as anything that Bush conjured up. Despite all the hype and hope, what Obama offers is nothing new. It amounts to the robber state and the regimentation of society, a plan that will kill off prosperity and the conditions that allow for it.
The Republicans are right to fight this tendency at every turn, for it represents a radical attack on all things truly American. Worse still, by playing with the printing presses, the policy tendency here is also deeply dangerous. It could destroy the dollar internationally and domestically, igniting a hyperinflation that no one will be able to control once it gets going. One only wishes that the Republicans had been so principled when their president was in charge!
$29 $25
The Obama administration says that we have to give the stimulus time to work. No need. The stimulus will not work. If we manage to pull ourselves out of this slump, it will be despite and not because of this stimulus package.
When putting together my book, I wondered which threat was actually more dangerous for us, the Right or the Left. I'm still not sure, for national socialism and international socialism are in close competition. I ended up focusing on both. It's a hard truth for Americans to face that neither team in Washington is going to guard what we love the most. That is something we are going to have to face. Liberty is for the citizens to guard themselves." - posted on 02/18/2009
稍做了笔误等修改如下:
举个简单的例子:知道联储(Fed) 和 Treasure 之间有时是怎么合作的吗?听说过
Fed open market operation 吗?为何Fed要买旧的联邦政府债券?有的时候,联
邦政府手里缺钱花(它什么时候不缺钱花呢?),Fed就到一个大银行(比如Chase)买
Chase持有的旧国库券(比如 $1B),并告诉Chase 买Treasure的 $10B 新国库券。
Chase老板不是傻子,知道和Fed合作的好处,就照办了。Treasure一下子就进来了
$10B的钱让联邦政府花。到底是怎么回事呢?那$10B是怎么来的,Fed不是只买了Chase
$1B 的旧国库券吗、Chase不是只从Fed得到 $1B钱吗?关键字是:fractional reserve
banking. Chase卖给Fed $1B 旧国库券,Chase在Fed的支票帐户上就有了 $1B 额外
的reserve. 按照Fed的规定,一个银行只要在它在FED的支票帐户里有$1储备,那个
银行就可以发出$10的贷款(这个比例上限是由Fed规定、调整的)。但没有几个银行
出于被存款人们挤兑的顾虑敢于贷出那样实足比例的款。但是,若CHASE买Treasure
$10B 新国库券,它没有那样的顾虑,只坐收那$10B国库券的利息就行了。那么FED用
来买CHASE $1B 旧国库券的钱是从哪里来的呢?是从nowhere来的,是从thin air
来的,是它造出来的。那就是 monetarization of deficit 的概念之一。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation