nimble
-
Posts
621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by nimble
-
-
There is no such thing as the right to knowingly assist in the violation of rights, which is precisely what one does when one withholds evidence that could be used to convict a criminal.
How would you go about giving subpoenas to those who know about a crime but don't want to talk, or give testimony? How would the government prove that they do know information? Look into their brains? And are you suggesting imprisoning those who wish to withhold testimony? That sounds very statist if you ask me.
-
How is it moral for the government (or any person) to issue subpeonas? If you are not guilty, then wouldn't the force used to get you to go to court have been an initiation of force? I think that it would be moral for the person wrongly accused to be able to sue the government or any agency that initiates force. Do you argee?
-
The only moral way for a bank to use fractional reserves is for them to tell the person putting the gold in their vaults that they may never ever come get more than 10% of their money. And they can only give them bank notes worth 1/10th of the gold they deposits (assuming the fraction of reserves is 1/10th). That way the bank does not inflate the money supply and the person is made to understand what they are getting into.
As for the historical aspect of this. Private banks did cause inflation. And as a result of inflation, and fractional reserve banking is the business cycle. A cyclic occurence in the economy of busts and booms. The money supply goes up, businesses grow and invest. Fractions of reserves get smaller as banks loan out too much, and when they risk a bank crisis, they raise interest rates to get money back in their vaults and stop loaning. This causes expansion and investment to dry up. Money supply contracts and a recession hits.
Without fractional reserves the economy would be on a steady growth. There wouldn't be booms or busts, just growth.
-
Did you read my post? It isn't a difference on morality. It's a difference on who will do more damage to the common Objectivisty ideals. It's based off of analysis of the current state of things in the United States and the positions taken by the candidates. All Objectivists agree that both candidates sucked. The thing they disagree on is who is more likely to screw things up. It's a matter of political prediction, not differences in morality.
It really can't be worse than it is now...no government is better than a tyrannical government.
-
Fractional reserve banking is not inherently fraudulent. If the lender discloses the potential risk (possibility of not redeeming all one's capital because it is being lent against speculative claims), then it can be (and largely is) valid.
No you do not get it. Even if the person consents to the possibility to losing the money. The bank has no right to print more currency than it has reserves to back it, because as we all know values do not arise out of thin air. It devalues everyones dollars.
-
When you get down to it, the difference between the ideal Objectivist government and ideal anarcho-capitalism is semantic rather than real. Consider:
1. The Objectivist government must not be funded by forced taxation, or it is no longer an ideal Objectivist government. This opens up the possibility that the government could fail for lack of money.
2. Despite the common use of the phrase, the Objectivist government would not have a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. People would still be allowed to defend themselves by force, and hire others to defend and protect them. These hired protectors are subject to the rules set forth by the government, but those rules can't be arbitrary. They can only prevent the private security forces from violating the rights of others; if they do more than that, we no longer have an ideal Objectivist government. This is no different than the anarcho-capitalist ideal: if a defense agency violates the rights of others, it is not considered a legitimate defense agency any longer, but rather a criminal gang.
Both ideals assume that the group in possession of the preponderance of force (whether that group is called "the government" or "the most powerful defense agency") will follow certain rules in applying that force. And for both, the only thing that can really enforce those rules is a belief in them that's endemic to the society from which the men with guns are drawn. If that belief weakens, the men with guns will overstep their limits, because they can. Again, that applies no matter how you label them.
That is exactly how I have always felt, but I do not argue with people here about it.
-
Perhaps I don't understand banking that well but....
Let's say for every deposit a bank must maintain some fraction N in reserve. I guess the only N that wouldn't constitute "fractional reserve" would be N = 100%. In this case the entire deposit must be maintained in reserve. So since the bank wouldn't be able to invest it anywhere it wouldn't be able to pay any interest on it. Moreover the depositor would have to pay all the fees required for storage. In essence a bank would only be some sort of fortified storage location for cash.
You are advocating that banks should be some sort of private Fort Knox?
Yes I would like every bank to be a depository, or at least upfront about their policy of inflating the money supply.
-
I won't speak for Nimble, but the only one who can legitimately invest money (lend it out at risk) is the proper owner of that money. The principle we must keep in mind is that two people cannot both be the exclusive owner of the same thing at the same time. Yet fractional reserve banking operates on the theory that Bank Account Holder A and Borrower B can both own the same money at the same time. This practice is just as fraudulent as selling two buyers the same vacation home and giving them both exclusive title to the home (and hoping that they don’t both show up to use it the same weekend). With fractional reserve banking, titles to money are spuriously created, meaning there are more titles to property than there is actual property. In fact, no new money (property) is created, but the number of titles to existing money is expanded. And it is in this manner that the value of the dollar is diminished.
That is exactly what I mean. You have a man with a "bank deposit note" that says he has a claim to X amount of gold, or whatever the reserve is, and then you have a bank that gives a loan for a fraction of X amount of gold to someone else who thinks they now have some of X gold. So now two people own the exact same gold, and the bank prays that everyone doesnt come back to get their money at the same time. Now if their were some disclaimer saying you were forbidden to come back for X amount of time to get your money, then it would be okay, but then the bank wouldn't be a bank, it would be a investment broker.
-
Apparently, no one likes to talk about economics. I think it's one of the coolest sciences. It is the study of human action/rationality.
-
Yes, Bryan is right a libertarian is not the same as a Libertarian. Moose asked if you were a libertarian, and not with the capital L that implies party affiliation.
-
Well, seeing as how you're a libertarian, I guess it makes sense that you support it.
Who is a libertarian?
-
I think his motive was to get votes for the Libertarian Party. I don't think he cares that socialist have different ideologies, just in the same way that Republicans and Democrats don't care where their votes come from, so long as they win. And truthfully, I think organized political parties are stupid for the reasons displayed above; voting just doesn't work.
-
I really don't see the point of your post. I don't see the correlation between Peter Schwartz and that thread you posted. Also, people having different moral grounds for being libertarians has nothing to do with the validity of anyone of those particular libertarian arguments.
-
Nimble said: "Businesses are hiring private arbitraters [sic] to enforce contracts, because government judicial systems are slow, inefficient and costly...."
Private arbitrators do not "enforce" contracts. They resolve disputes using a similar method as the courts, with the understanding -- agreed to by the disputing parties -- that the arbitrators resolution will itself be subject to legal enforcement. Without the (literal) court of final appeal of the actual government, private arbitrators' solutions would be as useless as anarchy's rent-a-mobs.
Nimble: "...So I think resolution of disputes is not something the government is best suited to handle."
If we are discussing forceable resolution of disputes, i.e., legal disputes, then only government is "suited to handle" it.
Good Point. Do you have an Aol Instant Messenger account? I cannot continue this debate here, but I wouldn't mind just chatting about this.
-
Any political system depends on the integrity of those practicing it, which is why you need a strict codification of the rules the government is expected to obey. Even if everyone within a society were moral, there would still be misunderstandings about contracts, rights, and other finicky applications of law, and the possibility of invasion from without, so you would STILL need a government.
Not true. One of the largest growing industries is the private contract industry. Businesses are hiring private arbitraters to enforce contracts, because government judicial systems are slow, inefficient and costly. So I think resolution of disputes is not something the government is best suited to handle. But I will not argue anarchy here. I enjoy staying on this forum, and I know this is a banable offense to advocate something other than Objectivism.
-
I don't even care if it is done by a private bank. It is still fraudulent. Loaning out more gold than is in your reserves devalues money and breaks the promise to pay that a banker gaurantees those who he gives his bank notes to. I'm for making sure that no bank loans out more than it has in gold reserves.
-
Even Greenspan supported a fractional reserve banking system, but fraction reserve banking is responsible for the creation of inflation, and it is a fraudulent practice. Does anyone else here have an opinion on this economic issue?
-
There is no answer to this. It is an out of context moral example where no good can come of it. Rand speaks of the problem deserted island conundrums often.
-
Thank you... I find that very helpful.
-
I appreciate all the replies. I have a few questions though. I thought it would be immoral to get drunk because living in and interpreting reality is a man's primary obligation and I don't think you can do that drunk. So how is it not immoral? Secondly, if I approach her with my concern how should I put it, I don't know how I would say something like that without souding crazy (she's not an Objectivist, but has several qualities I admire).
Thanks
Nimble
-
Yes. She doesn't drink frequently. It is usually party and casual situations. And when she does drink its just enough to get drunk. I don't think she tries to reach the alcohol poisoning point.
-
For some reason I have this odd problem with my girlfriend drinking. I do not think it is moral to get drunk, and I do not like her to get drunk. I do not drink, and I expect her not to. My problem comes, because I think that I am being unfair. I would like some insight to this situation if anyone can help.
Thanks
Nimble
-
Actually they'd say it is an analytical statement.
They would be wrong. I do not see how the Verification Theory Method is a statement of analytic truth. But I am not going to argue with you over this, because I really don't care about logical positivism enough to waste my time.
-
I don't think you have to worry. I haven't seen or heard of a logical-positivist in about 50 years. It is a self defeating theory. They claim that the only statements that have meaning are statements that are analytical truths or things that are empirically testible. However their that statement is neither an analytical truth nor an empirically testible statement.
Money: Fractional Reserve Banking Is Fraudulent
in Economics
Posted
Okay, I think we hit a wall, and neither of you understand the other. Fractional reserve banking can be moral and not fraudulent. If and only if, the terms are agree upon by the currency holders, and the currency is clearly labeled as only a FRACTION of gold. So that when you put an ounce of gold in the fractional reserve bank, they give you a slip of paper that says worth 1/10 of an ounce of gold, payable upon demand. And maybe they could continually give out more of these 1/10th oz. slips so that eventually the entire 1 oz of gold can be redeemed by the original owner with interest.
Also, if the fractional reserve bank does use a currency that says worth 1 oz of gold, and someone trades that slip to someone else, who doesnt know that that slip is only technically worth 1/10th an ounce of gold, then yes, that is fraudulent, and it does cause inflation.