gnargtharst

End game wrote: "I ask one question of you. Can I leave the United States with all of the money I have in cash? When that value is achievable, then we have not crossed the point of no return..." With all due respect, this statement is absurd. A "point of no return", is exactly that: a state of things in which there is no event or movement which could possibly prevent this nation from reverting toward total destruction and tyranny. To claim that the fact that your tax rate is not currently zero is proof that we have reached that point simply doesn't follow. If tax rates started going down, as a result of pro-capitalist ideas slowly making inroads, but had not yet reached zero, then we'd still be at the "point of no return"? If Objectivism became more influential and government were radically reduced, and funded by an interim flat tax -- but still a tax -- then we would past the "point of not return"? I have no opinion on the decision to "shrug", or whether one's taxes in a particular case may render one incapable of happiness. Certainly such cases exist; whether the present is one such case I have no way of knowing. But I can respond to the claim that such a decision is necessary because we have passed a "point of no return". Frustration is not knowledge. Being the victim of an injustice does not necessarily imply that the future is irretrievably lost.

End game wrote: "...I spend my time filling out reports, filing taxes, amongst other numerous tasks, I am not being compensated. Therefore, to protect the most valueable asset to me, time, I must decline to perform those tasks. Consequently, if I do not perform those tasks operating as a business, then eventually those that are the non producers will exercise a claim against what they have no claim against." So? Regulations are an injustice. how do you get from that obvious conclusion, to "shrugging"? EG: "...The action that best serves my life is adding more time for what I want to do." What do you want to do? And, why aren't you doing it already? EG: "I currently work 7 days a week usually long hours. Many of those hours are non-compensated, I do what I do because I enjoy the work and the action of producing. Removing the benefit by taxation and regulation negates the benefit." I gather form this statement that the benefit of your work is "enjoyment[ment] of the work and the action of producing". Taxation negates that? EG: "Therefore, the best solution is to remove myself from the system in a income earning role." How would you do that? As an investor, for example, you will still be supporting the looters to some degree. EG: "We as a country have reached the point of no return." No return from where? From freedom, and a more rational future? I would bet that most people on this forum would disagree. Certainly most professional Objectivist intellectuals disagree. I have found that a large number of people who read Atlas Shrugged suddenly see the nature of the problems of the world more clearly, and conclude that we're doomed. I disagree. The world's problems didn't just get worse because you finished Atlas Shrugged. Only your perception of them. EG "However, I do not think it is prudent to continue to provide for those that make decisions that have negative effects upon me." It's your choice obviously, but here's a question: will this course of action make you happy? Your particular shrugging may solve your particular problem, if you judge the obstacles in your path as insurmountable. But, if you like your work, and despise the thought of the looters using you as their golden-egg-laying goose, perhaps there're other more productive methods of fighting them. (Contributing to ARI strikes me as one simple alternative, e.g.) This country is far from the "point of no return", and values are abundantly achievable.

Hmm... a long and thorough discussion of this topic just vanished into cyber-limbo. Frustrating. Oh well, that'll teach me to be succinct. So: If the terms and conditions of fractional reserve banking are agreed upon by all contracting parties, then such practice is, by definition, not fraudulent (fraud necessarily entailing unilateral changing or hiding of the terms of a contract). Whether this results in inflation of a currency in a given instance, and whether this inflation is harmful to the currency's holders, are separate issues, but are nontheless issues agreed upon by all those who hold the currency and cannot logically be referred to as "fraudulent". (If, otoh, we are discussing government fiat currency, then that is indeed fraudulent, but not because of fractional reserve practises, per se.) A counterexample would have to show defrauded parties and explain the injury they suffered, within a private money scenario, wherein the terms of fraction lending were disclosed and agreed-upon. And since this can't be done, I hereby end my comments on this matter.

TR: "...However, fiction and inflation come into play when Clampett and the borrower of Clampett’s gold are both issued separate bearer certificates (property titles) to the exact same treasure at the same time." I assume you're referring to government-issued dollars. And if you're point is that government renders money fraudulent by legally mandating it (and its inflationary nature), then I agree with you. I think we've all agreed with that. But the gist of this thread at the beginning was that fractional reserve lending is inherently fraudulent. It isn't. My example demonstrated that. The history of free-market banking demonstrated that also.

TR: "To simplify matters, imagine a bank where there is just one depositor and one borrower. ...etc." Okay, example is acknowledged. Now let us imagine another example, also simplified: A depositor, we'll call him Mr. Clampett, walks into a bank with 500 ounces of gold. He asks the banker, whom I'll call Mr. Drysdale, if his gold will be safe. "I'll stake my reputation on the safety of your deposit, Mr. Clampett." "So my gold will be safe in your vault, and I can come get it any time I want?" asks Clampett. "Well, no. That's not exactly how it works. You see, when I have your gold, I'm going to use it to fund some business enterprises and other things. I hope thusly to make a bit of money myself. And when those enterprises have succeeded, and they pay back the gold they've borrowed -- your gold -- then it will be available for you!" "Uh huh. So you're pretty sure these businesses are going to succeed?" "I stake my reputation -- and my fortune -- on it". Clampett's becoming concerned. "Do you guarantee that all my gold will be returned?" "I guarantee that we'll follow scrupulous standards of lending." Clampett becomes more suspicious: "But do you guarantee my gold will be there?" Drysdale sighs. "No". "Then why would I want to put my gold in your bank?" Drysdale perks up. "Many reasons, Mr. Clampett. Convenience, for one. Safety, too -- our vaults are very strong." "But you might lose my gold." "Might. But probably not. In our 75 years in business, we've never been unable to give somebody all their gold when they came in to get it. Unless everyone coincidentally came to get it at the same time. For that reason, we agree upon what I'm able to do with your gold in advance, and then you can reasonably assess your odds of recovering your gold when you want it." "I guess that sound fair. It'd sound even better if I got a little piece of the action myself, being my gold and all." "It'll be my gold actually. In consideration, I give you rights to claim the gold back, subject to the conditions we agree on. But you drive a hard bargain, Mr. Clampett, so how about this: I'll give you 3 cents on the dollar, each year, for all the gold you keep in here." Clampett is interested. "Hmm... okay. It's a deal. Here's my gold, and I wish you the best of luck generating more wealth by using my former gold as capital. I may come back to claim some or all of it from time to time, per the details of our peaceful and voluntary agreement. I understand that my claim is subject to certain limitations and is similar to the claim I have on an airline seat or hotel room, both of whom also issue claims on commodities that are not guaranteed, but are reasonably likely to be delivered, and in that way generate more wealth than would otherwise have been possible. Whooo doggies, Mr. Drysdale, I sure love capitalism." Drysdale smiles. "Me too, Mr. Clampett. It's a win-win arrangement, and best of all, there's NO FRAUD or CONFLICT OF TITLE involved." [curtain]

TR: "The practice of degrading the value of a gold-backed currency via pseudo-receipts for gold can happen even in a purely private banking system..." If, by "psuedo-receipts", you mean fraudulent receipts, then, yes, that would degrade the value of that currency. But fractional reserve holding is not inherently fraudulent; a willing agreement between a bank and a customer to the terms of the fraction they are required to keep does not equal a "pseudo-receipt". If I own stock in Ford Motor, and they issue more stock, it may or may not devalue my current stock. But the point is, unless they have contractually promised not to issue any more stock, they have not defrauded me; I agreed to that possibility when I bought the stock. My stocks aren't "pseudo-stocks". TR: "...If monitoring of banknotes is successful, it will prevent financial institutions from treating notes that are not fully gold-backed as equal in value to those that have 100% gold backing." Monitoring? By whom? I assume you mean the government; why would the government need to "monitor" the terms of legitimate contracts between buyers and sellers? Don't you think the market already keeps a pretty close eye on this? How about: "If monitoring is successful, it will prevent automobile purchasers from treating a rusty 1974 Ford Pinto as equal in value to a 2005 Lexus sedan." TR: "...Of course, “monitoring” need consist of nothing more than prosecuting through the law any person or institution who engages in the chicanery of issuing certificates which supposedly represent gold reserves but which in fact do not." If by "supposedly represent gold reserves", you mean that such is explicitly agreed, but then fraudulently flouted, then we agree: fraud should be prosecuted. If, however, you're implying that fractional reserve lending is inherently fraudulent, then you haven't made your case.

Nimble wrote: "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." Private banks can only casue inflation of their own money supply. The business cycle, to the extent that the cycles are exaggerated and destructive, is a result of government control of the money supply -- and its correlative inability to price money correctly (similar to any state-produced good or service) -- not of private money supplies. Does the US econoomy frequently get catastrophic overages or underages of shoes, televisions, or comic books? No? That's because although any one, or few, producers of such things might miscalculate future demand, it is unlikely that they all will. Despite occasional business failures, it is unlikely that an entire industry will all miscalculate at the same time and destroy an entire industry. The same is true of private money. A good source for historic info on this subject is Richard Salsman's "Breaking the Banks". I'd bet Andrew West has some good sources too if he happens to catch this thread again.

Montesquieu wrote: "Do not forget that even if the banker and the depositors agree to adopt a fractional reserve system, they are still screwing over people not involved with the bank due to money multiplier inflation..." This is not strictly true, even assuming government fiat money: any adverse inflationary effects are only manifest to the extent the inflated money isn't matched by additional wealth. This can happen, but it doesn't have to happen. And if we're talking about private money, the there is no issue whatsoever. The soundness/inflation/deflation/reputation of money is just another value that gets reflected in the market price of the money.

Tom Robinson writes: "...if a fractional reserve bank issues dollar notes that are indistinguishable from the dollar notes issued a bank with full gold backing, then the value of the latter will be driven down by the former." I replied: "This statement is self-contradicotry. Two things cannot be simultaneously 'indistinguishable', and 'distinguishable' by essential differences." Tom Robinson replied: "If the 'essential differences' of two bank notes are not apparent, then the value of the notes is indistinguishable." Exactly. The root of the problem is not that some may willingly risk loss and/or devaulation by fractional reserve practices. The root of the problem is that essential differences (such as gold backing. for example) remain indistinguishable because of a de facto government monopoly on money. The problems that can arise from fractional banking stem from the fact that the problems are institutionalized via the government money system. But this does not make fractional reserve lending per se fraudulent. Coporate stocks can be inflated and/or deflated, too; this does not make the stock market fraudulent. Fraction-reserve lending can multiply productivity; the prudent fraction -- and risk and return level -- is up to the market to determine.

Tom Robinson writes: "...if a fractional reserve bank issues dollar notes that are indistinguishable from the dollar notes issued a bank with full gold backing, then the value of the latter will be driven down by the former." This statement is self-contradicotry. Two things cannot be simultaneously "indistinguishable", and "distinguishable" by essential differences.

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.

Welcome Todd from northwest Ohio. (Just curious: where in northwest Ohio? I'm from northeast Indiana originally.)

Warning regarding the above link to the Petronas Towers wallpaper: this is one of the worst spyware sites I have ever seen.

I agree with JMeganSnow's points so far, and would politely suggest that the arguments for "lie-to-the-dying-to-ease-their-pain" seem to have become floating abstractions. For example, consider Software Nerd's sincere-sounding statement: "...if I ever judge that lying to someone I love... would ease their pain, even if it was by letting them fake reality in their last moments, I know I would do it." Fine. Now, what exactly would be an example of easing pain by faking reality? As hard as I think, I can't imagine examples where this would actually happen. Even the most contrived examples I can think of, sound blatantly like rationizations to the white liar, designed to allay the pain of enduring a loved one's death. For example, I knew of a lady whose son committed suicide. The woman was Catholic, and evidently horrified by the prospect that her son's last act doomed him to hell. But her priest told her a white lie: the boy was sick -- he had a mental disease -- and was therefore not responsible for his act; he had not sinned. This allegedly was supposed to help the woman deal with the pain of pondering her lost son domomed to hell. I do not know in detail what the woman eventually thought, although I heard that she did not believe her son was "sick". So consider what this white lie acheived: she was asked to internalize that her beloved son was "less" than she last remembered him (a lie), in order to avoid picturing him burning in hellfire (another lie; probably someone's idea of a white lie, taught to her in her formative years); but if she pondered the issue sincerely, perhaps to resolve the painful situation in her mind, she would likely conclude that the priest, far from being the principled bastion that she counted on, was a petty little sheister, avoiding dealing with the most important moral conflicts. Her likely recourse was to evade the situation beyond a certain point, in order to avoid the deception of which that the entire issue seemed to reek. And forever repress a gut-wrenching pain, because the lies were harder to resolve than the tragedy. Perhaps I'm wrong and there's a concrete example that could change my mind, but considering that this whole thread started with an implausible and bizarre story about someone whose deathbed serenity could only be acheived by her daughter's miraculously reversed marital status... I doubt it.

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.

Spinnach, Are you at Purdue?

Christopher Schlegel wrote: "Wow; thanks for the compliment. I would like that, too. So far, I have an impressive list of rejection letters from some of the finest orchestras in the US. I am currently finishing up a degree in music, hopefully with the "right credentials" I can get my foot in the door somewhere in the future." At last year's Objectivist conference in Wintergreen, I learned a very helpful little tidbit from David Berry (in private conversation -- I was unable to attend his classes): For a relatively small amount of money, you can hire an orchestra to perform and record your work. But there's a catch: most US orchestras would charge a huge amount; but if you contract with an eastern European orchestra, many will do it cheaply. They're glutted with excellent talent from the days of Soviet state-supported arts, but without Soviet funding, many are cash-hungry. I don't know what constitutes "relatively cheap", but I plan to look into this myself.

Scientific American's response to Bjorn Lomborg's "Skeptical Environmentalist" was enough to make Jerry Falwell blush. For them to mock the pseudo-science of creationists is ironic on so many levels I get dizzy thinking about it.

P.S. to my own comments above: I'd be happy to donate to such an effort, through OO.net (assuming there's a reasonably responsible organization to taking such donations, etc.). It's kind of a nifty idea, the more I'm thinking about it; it enable those who wouldn't otherwise have enough to fund an entire county or state, to join with others to thusly donate.

Somewhat incidental comment here, but... If it gets around to it that OO.net should donate "free" books through ARI, with a nameplate, and it comes time to decide where the donation should go, i.e., what actual location (ARI contributors to the program designate a city or county...or state!)... I hereby humbly suggest SW FLorida (Lee, Charlotte, Hendry, Glades, Collier, etc. counties). Why? (besides the fact that it is where I live) Because there are already several counties involved in the free Fountainhead program here (Lee, Collier, & Pinellas); as a few more counties are funded, there will be a very large contiguous area of local schools teaching the Fountainhead (and Anthem). This concentration of students being exposed to Rand will create opportunities which might not be possible if donations were all spread out. For example: clubs, enough population to merit speakers and events, pressure on local colleges to offer related courses, and eventually pressure to the local school systems to offer Fountainhead in their standard curriculum -- this last is one of ARI's goals: once a local school system has taken on funding the Fontainhead, ARI resources can be moved on the next locale. Read more about the program at www.aynrand.org. I'm very excited about my county, where ARI is distributing more than 500 books this year. Remember, these are books that were specifically requested by teachers, to teach in their classrooms!

A news article identified the mass-murdering Minnesota high school shooter as a frequent poster to a web site for the "Libertarian National Socialist Green" party. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151116,00.html Ah, those tolerant Libertarians.

Perhaps sponsor a free-Fountainhead-for-schools locale. Add an "ObjectivismOnline.net" nameplate to the inside cover. See if/how many students pursue an interest in Objectivism via the books, and end up posting/reading here.

I think good publicity would be position statements -- essentially ARI Op-Eds in broadcast form. Brief commercials featuring ARI's position on, say, affirmative action, doctor-assisted suicide, war-on-terror-realted issues, etc. Many others address these issues, but the Objectivist position is usually slightly different in a way that's not well-known... and always interesting. I think you'd pique the interest of a lot of people who already believe in some of these positions, but not entirely consistently. Yet. I'd love to see such ads. But I'd guess that the cost-benefit of such an expense is not a top priority at ARI. In related good news: the free-Fountainhead-to-schools program is doing great. In my county, there were over 500 books requested. That's 500 students next year, 500 the year after that, etc. Same deal for the county immediately south of me. My goal is to turn South Florida into a bastion of Objectivist thought

Greetings and welcome to the forum. I like Symphony X. Not my absolute favorite, but better than most (I like their "Odyssey". On the heavy end, I enjoy Dream Theater. Love Steve Vai (just saw him in concert 3 nights ago. Mindblowing). My favorite will probably always be Rush.

Tom Robinson's claim that America was "based on" a submission-demanding, literal version of Christianity, because the date in the Constitution contains the phrase "Our Lord", is an excellent case-study in concrete-boundedness. Note some of the context that needs to be dropped to conclude this: First, the idea that adherence to a convention of rendering dates automatically implies agreement with the content of the source of the convention. Using this logic, we may conclude that Tom Robinson worships ancient Teutonic gods (I'm assuming he uses the names "Tuesday", "Wednesday", etc., for the days of the week). Second, the idea that the mere of the phrase "Our Lord" in a date in the constitution, implies that America was *based on* (i.e., took its fundamental and essential ideas from) a fundamentalist Christianity. I've checked over Tom Robinson's posts, and every one of them is accompanied by a date rendered in the Christian-based calendar system. Never does Mr. Robinson make a point to distance himself from this format of dating. We must assume, therefore -- using his own logic -- that his life is *based on* Jesus'. Third, the idea that adherence to Christianity *in any form*, is equivalent to Christianity in any *other* form -- i.e., the notion that there are not degrees of adherence to religion, that some people take religion very literally and mystically, while others put a humastic and this-worldy spin on it. Thomas Jefferson is Jerry Falwell in this contextless universe. Fourth, the idea that the religious beliefs of the "common man" in Colonial America is relevant. ...More relevant apparently, than the specific beliefs of the few Enlightenment intellectuals who actually founded this country. Tom Robinson continues: "The fact that Amendment I applies strictly to Congress simply shows that the architects of American government had no desire to see the church removed from state and local law." Perhaps Mr. Robinson forgot Jefferson's Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom? ...or maybe he doesn't consider Jefferson an "architect of American government". Mr. Robinson concludes: "...only an obtuse misreading of history could yield the idea that the founders of the republic did not believe that their country had a religious basis." Obtuse indeed.