My ATM card isn't working either, but I've only tested it at one machine in
Virginia.
Ken
- Original Message -
From: James M. Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: e-gold Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 12:48 PM
Subject: [e-gold-list] Re: America, no longer the land of the
At 04:13 PM -0700 06/10/2001, Craig Spencer wrote:
...
Gold is one of the greatest threats to the whole socialist world view.
Hmm. Maybe I was wrong to use the word socialist (since hardly any
socialists call themselves socialist anyway, these days). What I meant
is that e-gold is useful no
James M. Ray wrote:
At 04:13 PM -0700 06/10/2001, Craig Spencer wrote:
...
Gold is one of the greatest threats to the whole socialist world view.
Hmm. Maybe I was wrong to use the word socialist (since hardly any
socialists call themselves socialist anyway, these days). What I meant
e-gold
is like gold. It's apolitical stuff, just a currency!
I respectfully disagree.
Currency is about as political as one can get. Manipulating the currency
system is a purely political process, every move made for political, not
economic, reasons.
An apolitical currency is kind of like
What can we do or say to change things, so that they love e-gold
like they should? I've tried the it costs less argument many times,
1) How has the it is sooo convenient tangent worked? Convenience is a pretty
tame topic.
Jeff
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as:
At 10:30 AM -0700 06/10/2001, Jeff Fitzmyers wrote:
What can we do or say to change things, so that they love e-gold
like they should? I've tried the it costs less argument many times,
1) How has the it is sooo convenient tangent worked? Convenience is a pretty
tame topic.
Good idea, but for
At 12:57 PM -0400 06/10/2001, Samuel Mc Kee wrote:
e-gold
is like gold. It's apolitical stuff, just a currency!
I respectfully disagree.
Currency is about as political as one can get. Manipulating the currency
system is a purely political process, every move made for political, not
economic,
I think the way to win over socialists is to have them look
closely at what
banks bank-alternatives like check-cashing places charge poor people.
Of course, then we're still dealing with trying to get them to understand
market economics, which is back to the original problem..
I come
Jim,
I think the way to win over socialists
I think your goal is impossible. Socialists hate gold more than you
love it! (1) It offends their moral sense that people should use
or value something which they know is worthless (you can't eat
gold). (2) They know their enemy: a means by
Craig Spencer wrote:
Increasing the politicians have been trying to prevent this. There are
now exit taxes and other punitive measures to try to prevent people from
leaving. Remember when this sort of thing was condemned when it was
done by the USSR?
Now that you mention it, ain't that
I suggest the e-gold list is probably NOT the place for a long
discussion of political matters!
I'm an offender, let us keep it to pithy comments so Jim doesn't have
to bring down the email list police on us :)
---
Great ventures
Clearly, I read what you wrote perfectly well. When you say willing
to give away more of their freedom for it you imply that giving away
their freedom results in it (cars etc.).
Perhaps this is where the confusion is arising from. When I say willing
to give away more of their freedom for it I
Tristan,
Perhaps this is where the confusion is arising from. When I say willing
to give away more of their freedom for it I certainly do not mean that
giving away freedom results in wealth being produced.
OK.
The key word here is willing. If technology produces convenience at the
So you envision a situation in which some means of producing convenience
or wealth inadvertently results in degrading liberty?
Well, let me draw some parallels. The Boston Massacre involved just a few
people. The taxes Great Britain took from the colonists is nowhere near
the taxes taken from
Tristan,
So far you have said you don't mean either of the following.
1) unfreedom produces wealth
2) wealth causes less freedom
Yet for some reason that escapes me you still seem to think there is
some sort of trade off between freedom and wealth.
Rather, I mean to say, if the average
Tristan,
So far you have said you don't mean either of the following.
1) unfreedom produces wealth
2) wealth causes less freedom
Yet for some reason that escapes me you still seem to think there is
some sort of trade off between freedom and wealth.
Dear Craig,
There is, with the current
Tristan,
Hell, serfs didn't have as much taken from them as Americans do now.
However, Heritage's index is not the only one out there. I forget
who puts out the other one.
Serfs also didn't have anywhere near the amount of wealth the average
(and poor) Americans do today. So, I guess one
Do you really think that slavery produces wealth?
Yeah, but not for the slaves.
Viking Coder
Worth Two Cents?
http://www.2cw.org/VikingCoder
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VC:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Viking Coder wrote:
Do you really think that slavery produces wealth?
Yeah, but not for the slaves.
I used my words carefully. While slave labor may produce some
wealth which some slave holders may well acquire, slavery itself
is not **productive** of more
Viking Coder wrote:
Do you really think that slavery produces wealth?
Yeah, but not for the slaves.
Slavery always destroys *potential* wealth, by nullifying the potential
creative contributions of the slaves. It also weakens the incentive
toward technical and scientific progress by
I wouldn't say always.
Slavery might be more productive than freedom for unmotivated individuals
who gravitate to the bottom of society anyway.
- Original Message -
From: Julian Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: e-gold Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: e-gold Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unfree Americans may be wealthier than serfs but it does not follow that
the wealth is a consequence of our lack of freedom. Do you really think
that slavery produces wealth?
I never said that wealth is a consequence of our lack of freedom. (I
say our because freedom is really a state of mind;
Actually, Julian, in real life there are always criminals and sluggards no
matter how harsh the punishments against it or how great the incentives not
to be. The US legal system throws criminals in jail. They used to have to
work in chain gangs. That was slavery.
The free market by
offshoresurfer wrote:
The US legal system throws more people in jail than in any other
country of the world, yet the US crime rates are some of the highest
too.
How many of them are for halfassed pseudocrimes such as tax evasion,
drug use, whoring, gambling or ignoring silly bureaucratic
Hell, serfs didn't have as much taken from them as Americans do now.
However, Heritage's index is not the only one out there. I forget
who puts out the other one.
Serfs also didn't have anywhere near the amount of wealth the average
(and poor) Americans do today. So, I guess one way of looking
Do you really think that slavery produces wealth?
Yeah, but not for the slaves.
I used my words carefully.
I know. I was just playing around.
While slave labor may produce some wealth which some slave holders may well
acquire
If a slave holder has a lot of slaves, it is a very
Trustan,
If you had read what I wrote carefully, I said: people are willing
to give up more freedom, if it means they can be more wealthy.
In other words, people who can have what people in the 16th, 17th, etc
and even the beginning of the 20th century didn't have, are willing to
give
Unfree Americans may be wealthier than serfs but it does not follow that
the wealth is a consequence of our lack of freedom. Do you really think
that slavery produces wealth?
I never said that wealth is a consequence of our lack of freedom. (I
say our because freedom is really a state of mind;
The US legal system throws more people in jail than in any other
country of the world, yet the US crime rates are some of the
highest too. So harsh punishments don't work.
As has been pointed out, most of them are there for victimless crimes.
As to whether harsh punishments work to deter
As to whether harsh punishments work to deter _real_ crimes, e.g. murder,
rape, robbery, have a look at Singapore. Everyone I've ever talked to who
has been there says you can feel almost perfectly safe anywhere, any time,
provided only that you're not chewing gum or smoking a hoota.
Can you
I'd love to move to Singapore, but my wife won't have it.
For one thing, they know how to treat vandals there.
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
31 matches
Mail list logo
