Comments on Comments #6
In comments # 5 I continued the discussion of why I (generally) do not “hate the troops.” Franc replies:
Your argument seems to be that ignorance of morality is an excuse to be immoral. This does not seem very defendable to me. After all, the facts about the morality of the military are easily accessible to all. If they were not, you might have a case (as in for instance the fact that ignorance of the law should be an excuse, since every point of law is not easily accessible to the average person), but not here.
If you surrender your moral compass, either by joining the military or by putting faith in the government, then you should be blamed for everything that follows. You have abdicated your mental independence, and that’s a cardinal sin.
(I hope you mean a “cardinal sin” figuratively, because the essence of religion is abdication of mental independence!)
I do not support them, but that doesn’t mean I want them to die. I do not hate them, and that doesn’t mean I excuse their actions. Most of these kids (and they’re mostly kids) have been brainwashed to the point where they’d probably point a gun at your or me, if they were ordered to do so. They wouldn’t do this on their own. If monsters they’ve become, it’s because of the State—they’re victims, too, pawns as they are.
I do not mean that their actions should be excused, nor do I mean to suggest that ignorance is an excuse for immorality. But it certainly mitigates these factors, IMHO. People are bound to make grievous errors in judgment when the foundation for their decisions is a lifetime of propaganda. I deny that the facts about the morality of the military are easily accessible to all, precisely because I don’t believe for a second that the plain facts about “morality” are easily accessible to all. Living rightly is a conscious decision which requires knowledge of the right way to live, and practice/repetition or right actions. Sure, most people have some inkling of what it means to be moral, and what decisions are or are not right. But morality isn’t, I don’t think, something entirely innate, it is a learned behavior.
One’s moral compass can only be calibrated by consistent application of right reason and action. (If this goes any further, I’ll have to dig up my notes from Ethics class…) The State’s interference is like a magnetic field which imperceptibly alters the indications given, and sends you off course.
This post at Tranarchism brought me back to Tyler’s post at Marginal Revolution, questioning the validity of a gold standard. (see my previous response) This time, I perused the comments.
Bernard: “What is all this business about legal tender? All it refers to is something that must be accepted in payment of a debt. If you owe me money, what is it about “legal tender” that prevents me from accepting gold in payment if you offer it?”
Bernard, nothing prevents you from accepting gold as payment. Capital gains taxation, however, is an impediment. But more generally, legal tender laws preclude you from enforcing a gold-denominated contract. As creditor, you may be forced to accept paper dollars (i.e., legal tender, for all debts, public and private) at an unsatisfactory, but statutory exchange ratio.
Mike: “The biggest problem with the gold standard is that once the central bank commits to maintaining convertibility at (say) $800 per ounce, the central bank becomes vulnerable to a bank run.”
He then encourages people to read up on the real bills doctrine. I think Mike needs to read up on the gold standard. There is no practical need for a “central bank” or “lender of last resort” where notes are backed by specie and fully convertible.
Also related to gold, George Reisman has responded to critics (I count myself among them) of his recent post on the insertion of gold clauses into contracts.
What the insertion of gold clauses into existing contracts signifies is the use of government power to determine the purchasing power of what is paid and received in the fulfillment of contracts in a way that diminishes the further such use of its power.
As an aside, the logistics of this are sketchy, at best. I still maintain that the insertion of gold clauses is effectively an ex post facto order, which is facially unconstitutional. Limited government proponents (I assume Reisman is one) should be consistent with their reverence for the constitution. Furthermore, expecting the government to voluntarily restrain itself through legislative or regulatory processes is patently absurd: if the government were so inclined, it could simply stop the presses and refrain from “determining the purchasing power of what is paid and received”, in the first place!
Of course, as Reisman argues, no creditor lends money anticipating the future cash flows to be decimated by inflation. But similarly, no debtor has the ability to create money out of thin air, and then to lend it at for a profit! I just don’t see the justification for protecting the banking cartel’s Dr. Jekyll from its counterpart, Mr. Hyde. If we are interested in protecting small, non-institutional lenders, e.g., land contract vendeor, inter-personal loans, etc., from the negative side effects of declining purchasing power, we can do so by eliminating impediments to free contracts. As a policy proposal, I would begin by removing the obligations imposed by “legal tender” laws, a step which must necessarily be followed by reducing or eliminating the capital gains tax which must be paid on transactions denominated in certain terms (e.g., precious metals).
Regarding the appalling display of force against a quadriplegic man, commenter dwz says: “Pathetic. Ssimply pathetic.” Exactly. Although it’s not nearly as bad as this old incident in Detroit, where an emergency operator refused to dispatch anyone to a house where a five-year old boy was calling and reporting that his mother had passed out, because the boy was unable to put his mother on the phone. The boy’s mother, Sharon Turner, died of heart failure.
Kip wants to know if he’s saying it right: “Gnarly, dude!” in response to a snowboarding video I recently posted. Sounds good to me, Kip.
Citing my post, “Taxation is Theft!”, Stephan contributes Competition in Bads.
Proposing government by democracy is like saying ”Let’s have a competition to find out who’s the best at whipping the slaves! And the winner gets to be the slavemaster”. This is precisely what we don’t want.
Right! We don’t want to provide an opportunity for the most cunning, calculated, power-hungry con-artist to succeed at defrauding 300 million people. That is precisely what the democratic process is.
Note to regular readers: I will be on vacation from Thursday, 2/21 through Tuesday, 2/26. I may or may not pay attention to the interwebs during that interval.
Submissions to the blog carnival are due NLT 2/27.
Possibly related posts:
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
About The Author
“Of course, as Reisman argues, no creditor lends money anticipating the future cash flows to be decimated by inflation.”
Actually I think they ought to.
Caveat emptor and all that.
We’ve had constant inflation since 1913… I think any savvy lender by now prices inflation loss into their interest rate.