The term "progressive" makes every libertarian squirm. Every libertarian; even the ones who agree with me. Quid pro quo: the term "conservative" makes me squirm. Let's get to business.
Monetary reform is probably the single change this country could make to improve the lives and well-being of the entire country. The enslavement of our entire society, our entire world, to a network of private banking interests is reaching a breaking point. As the ponzi scheme continues to grow, now to include the Islamic countries from Algeria to Syria and beyond, we peons here in the US hold the last remaining hope for change, for freedom.
It is no small surprise that conservatism has embraced libertarian thinking (or the other way around). The argument that government is evil, that government should be eliminated altogether, and that democracy is a candy-coated word for tyranny is simply absurd.
We have rights, and government should protect us without violating those rights. It's pretty simple. We don't need less government, we need better government. More specifically, we need better control of our government. And that means looking to another part of our American Heritage: progressivism.
We have a choice: to continue to support the plutocracy that owns and controls our government, or we can build a truly grassroots movement on behalf of the people and on the principle of Liberty. Choose wisely.
The moral arguments of conservatism are designed to keep people divided, keep them politically stupid. They are easily disproven, but there is no real forum to disprove them once and for all. There is no final court of public opinion. And there is a great deal of funding behind the conservative arguments to continue their public relations campaigns.
Instead of arguing about the size of government, we should be discussing the methods of government. If there is a better idea regarding environmental protection, we should be discussing it. If we can ensure worker safety better than the games OSHA plays, we should be doing it. Hating government isn't the answer. But hating the corruption of our government is both essential and natural.
I've spoken for decades about alternative systems of social welfare, civil protection and infrastructure management. I've always approached the issue first as a libertaian, and second as a reasonable, progressive individual who cares about the general welfare. These can be discussed in detail and I'm sure there are acceptable platforms that can be developed.
The core issues that focus my attention, and should be the focus of all our attention (if we regard liberty and prosperity as common values) are currency and taxation. And while monetary reform is probably enough to build a movement on, it would be in our interest to discuss a tax shift as well.
The progressive side of me wants monetary reform, away from private central banks and toward a public, debt-free currency. The libertarian side of me wants to shift taxation away from income and trade, and move toward land, severance and pollution taxes. The politician side of me wants to focus on spending issues, away from corruption and toward popular, democratic control.
As I've always said: I'm not the smartest person I've ever met. I'm just doing what I think is best, and I'm hoping folks will understand what it is I'm doing and why I'm doing it. If you have something to contribute to this, I'd be happy to hear it.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Why School Vouchers will Fail in Pennsylvania
The primary motivation, the thrust of all statistical evidence, for SB-1 is to reduce educational costs to Pennsylvania taxpayers.
This becomes problematic when children of private schools, which receive few benefits from the public school system, would also receive these funds. In many scenarios throughout the years, such as with Ridge's bill many years ago, only private school enrollments would have been affected. There is no direct cost-savings in these scenarios.
A school district is much like an aircraft carrier in the sense that you can't fund "just half of it" and expect it to work. Withdrawing funds to send 500 kids to private/parochial schools would certainly sink school districts, but not before desperate attempts to raise property taxes through the roof.
But I have never seen it this way. The failures of our educational system have nothing to do with the cost. This should be obvious as we've been greatly increasing funding for public schools over the decades.. to no effect. Cutting costs too would have little or no positive impact on education.
So either you're just pissed about government spending, or you actually want an alternative to our public schooling system, one that would work better than what we have today.
If we can curb our irrational hatred of "teachers" for just one moment, we can look at the public schooling system as a failed model of social welfare. A parallel to state farms, state housing, state stores and state health care eludes to a structural failure of central planning versus their free-market, direct-subsidy alternatives.
Consider that a voucher for $3,000 is a pointless gesture to the majority of parents in PA. At most, it is only a supplement to people already outside the public school system. It doesn't resolve the core failures (and costs) of our present system.
It is no wonder that "vouchers" have been embraced by the social conservatives in the Republican party who finally get to throw some pork to their constituents. A few thousand dollars is a nice bonus to parents struggling to send their kids to private school for their own religious reasons.
But I don't care about any of that. The real issue is the model of public education that we want to embrace. Some say "zero" public education-- no funding for anything. I say great, go out and sell that idea to somebody.
The simple argument: to divide the costs of education into the number of students affected, and send the money down directly to ALL kids. Keep the teacher licensing idea and let ANY teacher reimburse the voucher. Let teachers be free to teach as professionals, like medical doctors do now. Free market delivery of public education would be responsive to the people.
This argument isn't being made, at least not directly. Sure, it might happen in rhetoric and in passing discussion, but it is never part of the hard political initiatives coming out of Harrisburg. Win or lose on SB-1, the moral failure of conservatism on this issue will kill the idea of vouchers.
This becomes problematic when children of private schools, which receive few benefits from the public school system, would also receive these funds. In many scenarios throughout the years, such as with Ridge's bill many years ago, only private school enrollments would have been affected. There is no direct cost-savings in these scenarios.
A school district is much like an aircraft carrier in the sense that you can't fund "just half of it" and expect it to work. Withdrawing funds to send 500 kids to private/parochial schools would certainly sink school districts, but not before desperate attempts to raise property taxes through the roof.
But I have never seen it this way. The failures of our educational system have nothing to do with the cost. This should be obvious as we've been greatly increasing funding for public schools over the decades.. to no effect. Cutting costs too would have little or no positive impact on education.
So either you're just pissed about government spending, or you actually want an alternative to our public schooling system, one that would work better than what we have today.
If we can curb our irrational hatred of "teachers" for just one moment, we can look at the public schooling system as a failed model of social welfare. A parallel to state farms, state housing, state stores and state health care eludes to a structural failure of central planning versus their free-market, direct-subsidy alternatives.
Consider that a voucher for $3,000 is a pointless gesture to the majority of parents in PA. At most, it is only a supplement to people already outside the public school system. It doesn't resolve the core failures (and costs) of our present system.
It is no wonder that "vouchers" have been embraced by the social conservatives in the Republican party who finally get to throw some pork to their constituents. A few thousand dollars is a nice bonus to parents struggling to send their kids to private school for their own religious reasons.
But I don't care about any of that. The real issue is the model of public education that we want to embrace. Some say "zero" public education-- no funding for anything. I say great, go out and sell that idea to somebody.
The simple argument: to divide the costs of education into the number of students affected, and send the money down directly to ALL kids. Keep the teacher licensing idea and let ANY teacher reimburse the voucher. Let teachers be free to teach as professionals, like medical doctors do now. Free market delivery of public education would be responsive to the people.
This argument isn't being made, at least not directly. Sure, it might happen in rhetoric and in passing discussion, but it is never part of the hard political initiatives coming out of Harrisburg. Win or lose on SB-1, the moral failure of conservatism on this issue will kill the idea of vouchers.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
A History of the Modern Libertarian Party
The modern view of the Libertarian Party is seen through the lenses of corporate media. Fox, MSNBC and even Jon Stewart use the term “libertarian” freely now to describe an implicit position on issues of taxation, regulation and social welfare. To the common viewer, Libertarian means a conservative who wants to legalize pot, or a Tea Partier without the theocratic nonsense.
Here’s a quick history lesson: You’ve heard of David Koch? He’s the very wealthy person who bankrolled the Tea Party in 2009. What you may not know is that he was also the LP candidate for Vice-President in 1980, and bankrolled the Clark campaign for some 1 million dollars. The parallels between the current Tea Party and the old Libertarian Party of 1980 are too similar to be ignored.
The Libertarian Party was founded, so the lore goes, in the living room of David Nolan and some other Republicans who were upset about Richard Nixon’s wage-price freeze. They recruited a Presidential candidate John Hospers who wrote a campaign book and was on the ballot in maybe 2 states.
John Hospers received an electoral vote from the guy who wrote Little House on the Prairie. That guy also wrote his own campaign book and ran for President the next time around. The Libertarian Party was slowly growing through a network of unappreciated Objectivists, followers of Ayn Rand, and in coalition with anarchists and ex-Birchers.
In 1980, the LP went from relative obscurity to national prominence, as Ed Clark (with David Koch) was on the ballot in all 50 states and ran a strong, well-funded nationwide campaign. Reagan was elected that year, and in 1981 the LP collapsed under a half-million dollar debt incurred by the Clark Campaign.
Reagan’s presidential address was titled “A New Beginning”, also the title of Ed Clark’s campaign book. To deny that the LP was a vehicle for the Republican Party is to deny the same of the Tea Party today.
By 1982, the LP had all but vanished, except in little pockets such as my own state of Delaware. 20% of the candidates fielded by the LP in 1982 were from my state. We had a full ballot, every precinct covered with legislative and state-level candidates. But this little pocket collapsed as well in 1983, and not much happened after that—nationwide.
The LP had become another American Party, a lingering pool of veterans from some media battle long ago. It was temporarily revived when Ron Paul ran for President in 1988, but he wasn’t advocating the LP at the time, just his own views and agenda. Today, Ron Paul is considered the de facto leader of the LP by corporate media, with John Stossel as its official pundit.
So the Tea Party phenomenon was, historically, quite similar to the Libertarian Party of 1980, with the same post-election fallout of factionalism and defunding. The only difference today is in the intensity of media. In 1980, there were 3 broadcast networks. Controlling the national discourse is a more delicate affair these days.
I should say that, in 1980, there was a 3rd party candidate named John Anderson who came out of nowhere to run for President. That guy received 6% of the vote nationwide, much as Ross Perot did in 1992 when Bush was denied a second term. Obviously, corporate media provided both of these candidates with grand coverage. I maintain that a box of rocks could win 6% of the vote given adequate media coverage.
I still think the Libertarian Party is a good idea, or rather could be.
Here’s a quick history lesson: You’ve heard of David Koch? He’s the very wealthy person who bankrolled the Tea Party in 2009. What you may not know is that he was also the LP candidate for Vice-President in 1980, and bankrolled the Clark campaign for some 1 million dollars. The parallels between the current Tea Party and the old Libertarian Party of 1980 are too similar to be ignored.
The Libertarian Party was founded, so the lore goes, in the living room of David Nolan and some other Republicans who were upset about Richard Nixon’s wage-price freeze. They recruited a Presidential candidate John Hospers who wrote a campaign book and was on the ballot in maybe 2 states.
John Hospers received an electoral vote from the guy who wrote Little House on the Prairie. That guy also wrote his own campaign book and ran for President the next time around. The Libertarian Party was slowly growing through a network of unappreciated Objectivists, followers of Ayn Rand, and in coalition with anarchists and ex-Birchers.
In 1980, the LP went from relative obscurity to national prominence, as Ed Clark (with David Koch) was on the ballot in all 50 states and ran a strong, well-funded nationwide campaign. Reagan was elected that year, and in 1981 the LP collapsed under a half-million dollar debt incurred by the Clark Campaign.
Reagan’s presidential address was titled “A New Beginning”, also the title of Ed Clark’s campaign book. To deny that the LP was a vehicle for the Republican Party is to deny the same of the Tea Party today.
By 1982, the LP had all but vanished, except in little pockets such as my own state of Delaware. 20% of the candidates fielded by the LP in 1982 were from my state. We had a full ballot, every precinct covered with legislative and state-level candidates. But this little pocket collapsed as well in 1983, and not much happened after that—nationwide.
The LP had become another American Party, a lingering pool of veterans from some media battle long ago. It was temporarily revived when Ron Paul ran for President in 1988, but he wasn’t advocating the LP at the time, just his own views and agenda. Today, Ron Paul is considered the de facto leader of the LP by corporate media, with John Stossel as its official pundit.
So the Tea Party phenomenon was, historically, quite similar to the Libertarian Party of 1980, with the same post-election fallout of factionalism and defunding. The only difference today is in the intensity of media. In 1980, there were 3 broadcast networks. Controlling the national discourse is a more delicate affair these days.
I should say that, in 1980, there was a 3rd party candidate named John Anderson who came out of nowhere to run for President. That guy received 6% of the vote nationwide, much as Ross Perot did in 1992 when Bush was denied a second term. Obviously, corporate media provided both of these candidates with grand coverage. I maintain that a box of rocks could win 6% of the vote given adequate media coverage.
I still think the Libertarian Party is a good idea, or rather could be.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Peter & Paul
If there's one thing that binds both anarchists and conservatives alike, it is the phrase, "taxation is theft".
This is a moral argument based on the idea that "no person should be forced to live for another". Ayn Rand used the phrase, "you can't rob Peter to pay Paul". This idea is currently at the center of modern libertarian rhetoric.
Of course, the real moral argument isn't about robbing Peter to pay Paul, it's just about robbing Peter. If a moral system of public finance can't be found, then it would be true that taxation is theft. But this has nothing to do with Paul.
There certainly IS a moral system of public finance. Even anarchists agree that, as impractical as it may be, a system of voluntary contribution would be "moral". There are other, better "moral" sources of public finance that can be argued.
I believe that the role of government should be to protect us without violating our rights. To protect us, we require a recognition of civil rights to land and natural resources, to an infrastructure that binds our economy, and for free access to a free market.
More than just a recognition of civil rights, a government should protect our individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This means providing for the common defense and the general welfare. but our rights should not be violated in the process.
Anti-welfare rhetoric begins with the argument that taxation is theft, so all good things the government should be doing become implicitly immoral. This is absurd. To say that Paul is immoral because of the injustices to Peter is simply not true.
So let's talk about Peter. What right does Peter have to a vein of coal, or to an oil deposit, or to the air, water and skyways? What right does Peter have to threaten Force against anyone who would trespass his territorial claims?
Some say "finders keepers" or "dibbs" is sufficient to grant allodial title over God's earth. I'm sorry, but pointing a gun at a trespasser is an offensive act toward human society.
The role of government is to protect us, requiring that offensive force be aggressively confronted. Exclusive access to land and natural resources is a privilege of society, and so should provide the source of all public finance.
If Peter wants to extract oil from the earth, he can pay us for it. If Peter wants to claim 100 square miles of land, he can pay us for it. A shift in taxation from income and sales taxes to severance, land and pollution taxes would be moral as well as practical.
Let conservatives hide their anti-welfare rhetoric behind claims of Injustice. Soon they'll realize that it is a fabricated justification in support of aristocracy.
Paul is you, me, each of us who has a stake in promoting a better government. Peter too is each of us, and we should consider how we are to relate to the rest of society in a civil manner.
This is a moral argument based on the idea that "no person should be forced to live for another". Ayn Rand used the phrase, "you can't rob Peter to pay Paul". This idea is currently at the center of modern libertarian rhetoric.
Of course, the real moral argument isn't about robbing Peter to pay Paul, it's just about robbing Peter. If a moral system of public finance can't be found, then it would be true that taxation is theft. But this has nothing to do with Paul.
There certainly IS a moral system of public finance. Even anarchists agree that, as impractical as it may be, a system of voluntary contribution would be "moral". There are other, better "moral" sources of public finance that can be argued.
I believe that the role of government should be to protect us without violating our rights. To protect us, we require a recognition of civil rights to land and natural resources, to an infrastructure that binds our economy, and for free access to a free market.
More than just a recognition of civil rights, a government should protect our individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This means providing for the common defense and the general welfare. but our rights should not be violated in the process.
Anti-welfare rhetoric begins with the argument that taxation is theft, so all good things the government should be doing become implicitly immoral. This is absurd. To say that Paul is immoral because of the injustices to Peter is simply not true.
So let's talk about Peter. What right does Peter have to a vein of coal, or to an oil deposit, or to the air, water and skyways? What right does Peter have to threaten Force against anyone who would trespass his territorial claims?
Some say "finders keepers" or "dibbs" is sufficient to grant allodial title over God's earth. I'm sorry, but pointing a gun at a trespasser is an offensive act toward human society.
The role of government is to protect us, requiring that offensive force be aggressively confronted. Exclusive access to land and natural resources is a privilege of society, and so should provide the source of all public finance.
If Peter wants to extract oil from the earth, he can pay us for it. If Peter wants to claim 100 square miles of land, he can pay us for it. A shift in taxation from income and sales taxes to severance, land and pollution taxes would be moral as well as practical.
Let conservatives hide their anti-welfare rhetoric behind claims of Injustice. Soon they'll realize that it is a fabricated justification in support of aristocracy.
Paul is you, me, each of us who has a stake in promoting a better government. Peter too is each of us, and we should consider how we are to relate to the rest of society in a civil manner.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Freedom is Slavery: The Old Paradigm
I'm 100% for Free Markets. I'd like to ask some opinions though on the issue of International Trade.
Prior to the American Civil War, the economy of the South was driven by slavery. There were people then, as there are today, who believe this should have been resolved with respect to the 10th Amendment (let the States decide). Some apologists believe that slavery would eventually have ended in due course. A million deaths later and we had the 13th and 14th Amendments.
Today we are confronted with an entire world driven into poverty and virtual slavery. Corporations, backed by the CIA and US Military, have corrupted governments to allow easy access to raw materials, oil and cheap labor. This undermines our own manufacturing base in the US leading to pressure for lower wages here. The facts are there to see.
We have pesky "minimum wage" laws here in the US without which our wages would normalize with foreign labor. Protectionist tariffs are intended to force higher prices on imports as a price support for domestic labor costs. These are both subjects of incessant attack by those arguing for "Free Trade", and has been a strong part of LP economic policy since the beginning.
The relationship between Pennsylvania and South Carolina was much the same. There were no tariffs between the States. Manufacturers in PA enjoyed cheap cotton etc.. It was a free market, and it worked great for everyone.. except the slaves of course.
Today we import from Indonesia, China, South America, Mexico and Africa under a similar arrangement. We recognize an international version of the 10th Amendment with these countries, to allow them to violate the rights and liberties of their populations, as long as our loans are recognized and our contracts enforced.
Personally, I believe that accepting stolen property makes one culpable. Accepting contracts with dictators is to sign on with those dictators. Trade isn't "free" when one of the parties are coerced. And allowing corporations to act as free agents of US foreign policy, to corrupt governments as in Ecuador, Panama, Indonesia, Liberia, Iraq, you name it, all backed by threats of assassination, coup and invasion, isn't a policy of "free trade", but one of colonialism.
I am not a supporter of NAFTA, the North American "Free Trade" Agreement, but I was never sure just why. It seemed to me like the Fugitive Slave Act. Neither am I a supporter of reducing the federal minimum wage. We are culpable for the injustices of our government, and we should be considering ways to rectify the situation.
Any thoughts?
Prior to the American Civil War, the economy of the South was driven by slavery. There were people then, as there are today, who believe this should have been resolved with respect to the 10th Amendment (let the States decide). Some apologists believe that slavery would eventually have ended in due course. A million deaths later and we had the 13th and 14th Amendments.
Today we are confronted with an entire world driven into poverty and virtual slavery. Corporations, backed by the CIA and US Military, have corrupted governments to allow easy access to raw materials, oil and cheap labor. This undermines our own manufacturing base in the US leading to pressure for lower wages here. The facts are there to see.
We have pesky "minimum wage" laws here in the US without which our wages would normalize with foreign labor. Protectionist tariffs are intended to force higher prices on imports as a price support for domestic labor costs. These are both subjects of incessant attack by those arguing for "Free Trade", and has been a strong part of LP economic policy since the beginning.
The relationship between Pennsylvania and South Carolina was much the same. There were no tariffs between the States. Manufacturers in PA enjoyed cheap cotton etc.. It was a free market, and it worked great for everyone.. except the slaves of course.
Today we import from Indonesia, China, South America, Mexico and Africa under a similar arrangement. We recognize an international version of the 10th Amendment with these countries, to allow them to violate the rights and liberties of their populations, as long as our loans are recognized and our contracts enforced.
Personally, I believe that accepting stolen property makes one culpable. Accepting contracts with dictators is to sign on with those dictators. Trade isn't "free" when one of the parties are coerced. And allowing corporations to act as free agents of US foreign policy, to corrupt governments as in Ecuador, Panama, Indonesia, Liberia, Iraq, you name it, all backed by threats of assassination, coup and invasion, isn't a policy of "free trade", but one of colonialism.
I am not a supporter of NAFTA, the North American "Free Trade" Agreement, but I was never sure just why. It seemed to me like the Fugitive Slave Act. Neither am I a supporter of reducing the federal minimum wage. We are culpable for the injustices of our government, and we should be considering ways to rectify the situation.
Any thoughts?
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The Good Fight
You hear numbers these days, about a Trillion dollars-this and Millions of People-that. What the hell? Who actually thinks their opinion on "politics" has any impact that can't be handled by a Customer Service desk?
When you hear of millions losing their unemployment benefits, or millions without health care, or millions living in poverty, do you really care? Of course you do! When you hear of trillions in federal debt, of trillions in wealth going overseas, of trillions in resources being owned by a handful of people, what can you do about it? What, vote Republican or something?
All these intellectual arguments I get into with friends-- anarchism, objectivism, socialism, ISM-ism-- these are arguments that poor people have. People in power don't bother with ideals, with "right and wrong". Power is its own reward.
Gee, I wish I was a US Congressman. Awesome pay, full benefits, retirement, free offices fully staffed, free transportation, and all the money I can weasel for my friends. All I'd have to do is to eliminate any sense of right and wrong from my thinking. Sell my Soul so to speak. Hey, if not me then someone else, right?
Honestly, if I was elected and serving on the House floor, what could I really accomplish? Is there truly any debate or discussion that can carry the day? Do ideas trump cold cash? Every bill today requires a 2/3 majority in the US Senate, and that demands compromise (i.e. cold cash).
And to make it to the US House, I'd have to represent the interests that were able to put me there. It would take at least a million dollars to make an effective campaign and upset an incumbant, perhaps twice that. In a district with 1/2 million people, with 1000 financial supporters--- you do the math. There is absolutely no way to finance an election without catering to a handful of rich and powerful contacts.
Again, who thinks their opinions on "politics" has any impact?
Well, I do. Screw these nabobs. I'm going to continue to fight the good fight. If I want to work out a deal, it's not going to be with these marionettes. I'll make my deal with real people, the "least of us", We the People.
When you hear of millions losing their unemployment benefits, or millions without health care, or millions living in poverty, do you really care? Of course you do! When you hear of trillions in federal debt, of trillions in wealth going overseas, of trillions in resources being owned by a handful of people, what can you do about it? What, vote Republican or something?
All these intellectual arguments I get into with friends-- anarchism, objectivism, socialism, ISM-ism-- these are arguments that poor people have. People in power don't bother with ideals, with "right and wrong". Power is its own reward.
Gee, I wish I was a US Congressman. Awesome pay, full benefits, retirement, free offices fully staffed, free transportation, and all the money I can weasel for my friends. All I'd have to do is to eliminate any sense of right and wrong from my thinking. Sell my Soul so to speak. Hey, if not me then someone else, right?
Honestly, if I was elected and serving on the House floor, what could I really accomplish? Is there truly any debate or discussion that can carry the day? Do ideas trump cold cash? Every bill today requires a 2/3 majority in the US Senate, and that demands compromise (i.e. cold cash).
And to make it to the US House, I'd have to represent the interests that were able to put me there. It would take at least a million dollars to make an effective campaign and upset an incumbant, perhaps twice that. In a district with 1/2 million people, with 1000 financial supporters--- you do the math. There is absolutely no way to finance an election without catering to a handful of rich and powerful contacts.
Again, who thinks their opinions on "politics" has any impact?
Well, I do. Screw these nabobs. I'm going to continue to fight the good fight. If I want to work out a deal, it's not going to be with these marionettes. I'll make my deal with real people, the "least of us", We the People.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
A tyranny by a state is no different than a tyranny by a nation. We have neither at this point. Sure, our legislatures are ALL owned by wall street lobbyists (and a few unions), and our debt-money system is impoverishing our society.
But take a CLOSE LOOK at the money behind the Tea Party and the conservative think tanks that fuel this fire: CATO, the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works… all financed by big, big money from… you know where.
Learn the word “plutocracy” and decide if that’s what you really want. The role of government is to protect our equal rights to life and liberty… and to do it well.
The federal reserve bank is a private corporation and is the largest holder of our national debt (1.6 trillion last I heard). There is no reason for this. The US should be able to issue its own currency, debt-free.
And a note to the gold bugs: “Fiat” simply means legal tender. If you promote gold standard, then you are promoting a gold-fiat system, a system where the only way to pay your taxes is with gold. That’s what the Currency Act of 1764 (and the Stamp Act of 1765) did to the colonies, wrecking their economy and driving them to revolution.
I'm really getting tired of hearing calls for the 2nd American Revolution, especially when it's over this issue or that, "states rights" or whatever lame excuse you hear these days.
Debt-free currency and the end of fractional reserve lending is the biggest prod you can give to the assholes who run our society. Poke THAT bear with a stick and see if he doesn’t get up and fight.