^
etymology of anarchy:

1539, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader" (see archon). Anarchism is attested from 1642. Anarch (n.) "leader of leaderlessness," a deliciously paradoxical word, was used by Milton, Pope, Byron. Anarcho-syndicalism is first recorded 1913.

Anarchism at its root is about rejecting authority. Capitalism creates its own ideas of authority with property rights, and the accumulation and control of capital.

That's why they trash businesses, and then yell "Fuck the police" when the cops show up.

>> ^robdot:
my friends. this guy is hopelessly out of touch. hes living in the 1920;s or something. if the usa was the size of texas maybe we could live the way he proposes, but we are 300 million strong. we must feed and protect 300 million people. we need desease control. emergency management. protection of our food supply.
we can not survive.literally,without the fda cdc fema etc. also without a progressive income tax the wealth would quickly be in the hands of a small percentage of the population. no matter what anyone says our tax system helps to ..spread the wealth. fair tax, flat tax. sales tax. etc. are regressive. the more you make the less you pay in taxes. thats why we dont do that. this guy is one of the reasons we are so fucked up right now. hes completely lost.


Um, your country survived for more than half it's existence without those services. You also survived without the income tax until 1913! Also, an unapportioned tax on income is actually unconstitutional.

Also, regarding the income tax spreading the wealth around, perhaps some numbers might convince you otherwise:


In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. - Source

Ron Paul is on the side of individuals making decisions for themselves. The CDC, FDA and FEMA don't feed 300 million people, individuals work and receive money that they buy food with. The government does not contribute at all, except taking a percentage of that individuals earnings in tax and spending it on government programs.


>> ^chilaxe:
Paul's and Schiff's prediction of the end of civilization as we know it unless we all become fans of freshwater economics doesn't look very likely. They better hope for something like a meteor strike to help bring civilization down, because it's a drain on your credibility if your 100% certainty predictions don't pan out.


In comparison with the people who are actually in control of the economy, Schiff and Paul have been right 100% of the time. If anyone's credibility should be questioned, it should be Bernanke and Geithner.

"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none." - Gutle Schnaper, Mayer Amschel Rothschilds wife.

-

"I am one of those who do not believe the national debt is a national blessing... it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country."

Andrew Jackson, Letter to L. H. Coleman of Warrenton, N.C., 29 April 1824

-

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had mens views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913), Doubleday

-

"From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."

Winston Churchill, "Zionism versus Bolshevism", Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920, pg. 5

-

"The people must be helped to think naturally about money. They must be told what it is, and what makes it money, and what are the possible tricks of the present system which put nations and peoples under control of the few."

Henry Ford, My Life and Work, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1922

-

"I am afraid that the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money. The amount of money in existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing or decreasing deposits and bank purchases. Every loan, overdraft or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every repayment or bank sale destroys a deposit. And they who control the credit of a nation, direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."

Reginald McKenna, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, addressing the shareholders as Chairman of the Midland Bank, at the Annual General Meeting in January 1924.

-

"The present Federal Reserve System is a flagrant case of the Governments conferring a special privilege upon bankers. The Government hands to the banks its credit, at virtually no cost to the banks, to be loaned out by the bankers for their own private profit. Still worse, however, is the fact that it gives the bankers practically complete control of the amount of money that shall be in circulation. Not one dollar of these Federal Reserve notes gets into circulation without being borrowed into circulation and without someone paying interest to some bank to keep it circulating. Our present money system is a debt money system. Before a dollar can circulate, a debt must be created. Such a system assumes that you can borrow yourself out of debt."

Willis A. Overholser, A short review and analysis of the history of money in the United States, with an introduction to the current money problem (1936), p. 56

Feds creation was in 1913, the great depression was in the 30s. There was no smiler event in scale or scope related to monetary policy prior to the fed; top notch job those guys are doing. I am not implying causality, just the prevention that you mentioned also does not exist.

In reply to this comment by Deano:
*promote so that all the parts are sifted...

Schiff predicts inflation as a consequence of the massive bailout money that was created by the fed. I'm not convinced that he's wrong just because it isn't happening right now - the money sitting with the banks is going to have to leave sometime. They can do so slowly, so as not to shock the economy, but the amount that has to eventually leave is massive. This isn't to say I'm sure he's right either, though even if he's wrong it may not matter (read past the next paragraph for why).

The article mentions Japan creating a lot of yen to deal with the Asian economic crisis, but what it doesn't mention is that the Japanese government and people save money and have savings, compared to the American governments, and American consumers spending and debt.

One reason for why we shouldn't have a fed controlling the money supply, is that controlling inflation and deflation is not desirable in and of itself. It's only the effects on the economy that are good or bad.

The federal reserve bank has shown time and again that it can keep the currency relatively steady (with a slight increase in inflation every year), and yet we regularly have these economic crises fairly often, about once every decade. This did not happen with nearly the frequency it does now under more naive economic systems, pre 1913. Yes, the federal reserve act was created in response to just one such incident in 1907, but that's the problem with government acts. They're passed in response to rare events, so when the events become significantly more common, it isn't obvious that the frequency increased rather than decreased. By the time the next rare undesirable event happens (a little sooner than it otherwise would have), people conclude that the act is working, but we need to do more of it.

In the long term I see little reason to conclude that the federal reserve has a stabilizing effect on that economy, or that it's even desirable to control the amount of inflation or deflation.

We would be better off not worrying not so much about inflation and deflation, and instead wonder why our economy crashes every 10 years. Which isn't to say I'd like to utterly disband the fed immediately, the effects on our economy would be terrible. I submit to you that our economy wouldn't crash more often or be any worse if we never had a central bank.

>> ^gtjwkq:
>> ^enoch
how is reducing government size going to affect the "culprit" of america's current financial crisis?since when did goldman-sachs and the federal reserve become government agencies?

You're kidding, right?


um...no.
it is a private institution, while the federal reserve act of 1913 may have given the fed it's birth and a charter,it is a still private.a charter is how every bank in the country need to operate,does that mean that every bank is government owned?they were basically hired to do a job,and the abuse has been going on for almost a century.
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml
"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws. — Mayer Amsched Rothchild, a prominent European banker in the eighteenth century"
whose family coincidently is part owner of the federal reserve.
"If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. — Thomas Jefferson

through the past century,every recession,inflated bubble and depression there has been ONE financial institution GOLDMAN SACHS.with incredibly strong ties to the federal reserve and the world bank and the cute and cuddly international monetary fund.i am not going to write a report just to make a point.
you think its fannie and freddie?
ok..i say fannie and freddie were planned....by?
well...i already stated as such who i think holds the blame for that.
great article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine#
and i would recommend one book that is vital,especially now.the man has called it since 2004 while everybody treated him as a pariah.interesting how this man is now thinking of running for senator.see what happens when you call it right?
peter schiff and his amazing book "crash proof"
great short vid here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NvjrfC6i0I

but hey,you go ahead and keep thinking it was the government and freddie and fannie.
but i was not kidding.

>> ^gtjwkq:
If you say the Fed arose from the necessity to stabilize interest rates, you just bought into their alleged purpose, you're drinking the kool-aid. You're starting from the premise that because currency used to be issued by private banks, they'd always have an evil agenda and take advantage of people who used it.

I'm far from alone in drinking that particular kool-aid. I wasn't around in the late 19th century, but the history of what people believed and were trying to do at the time is all I've got to go on. Austrians disagree with the majority of history books on, well, all of history. I think that's more easily explained by the theory that Austrians are prejudiced and in a deep well of their own confirmation bias than than that they're right while the rest of the world is wrong.

Personally, I'd rather not have multiple currencies no matter what. I don't even like Xbox Live points.

Linking to an article and just saying "False" makes your view of economics seem simplistic to me.

That was in response to a single clause of a single sentence where you made an entirely false assertion that there weren't crashes in America before 1913. There were. Lots of them.

I don't quite get what's so hard to understand about the idea that markets can be wrong. That's not simplicity, it's just the fact of the world. I think some economists might call it "irrational exuberance". There's also the word hubris, which was probably around before the concept of currency.

Entire schools of thought were built around mistaken or dishonest premises. There are a lot of political motivations behind false economics

Yes, I agree. Austrians put forth a politically motivated school of thought. After the Great Depression, it was proven false. Economists with intellectual integrity moved on to other theories. You'd like the Chicago school. It's just as self-deceptive, and just as politically stilted, and all you really have to change about your politics is say central banks are a necessary evil. It's still a respected school, though the Japanese Lost Decade, and our current crisis are giving it some trouble, just like the bout with inflation in the 70's gave Keynesians trouble.

It remains to be seen whether they adapt the theory to fit the evidence, as the New Keynesians have, or whether they go the way of the Austrians, and descend into strident self-deception.

When you mock me saying I assume something created by govt is bad, it makes me wonder if you truly understand the corruptible nature of govt.

Yes, I do. But I mock you for thinking corrupt behavior begins and ends with government. Seems to me that if bribery affected someone's reputation enough to make them go out of business, it'd easily be good enough to ensure they lose elections.

That doesn't seem to be the case in either sector. If you think politicians are corrupt, boycott the companies who use lobbyists. Seems like a good compromise between your philosophy and mine.

woodrow wilson in 1913 signed into law,the "federal reserve act".
on his deathbed he lamented that he may just have committed his fellow citizens to a life of slavery,and plunged the country he loved into eventual extinction.
thanks woody! thanks for nothin......

Anecdote:

My dad was fairly old (53) when I was born. He was born in 1913, so he was alive during the Great Depression (he rode the box cars) and World War II (he served in the Navy, in the Pacific). Anyway, he was a union man his whole life, BUT he was racist. Not KKK, cross-burning racist, but racist all the same. And what was depicted in this video was very real, even in the first half of the 20th century. I'm not at all proud of his racism, but he was my dad, and he was a loving father, and I still loved him. So sue me.

Back in the '30s it wasn't unacceptable to be a Communist. Though my dad wasn't a Communist, he knew and socialized with some. One time he went to a Communist gathering, mainly because there was free beer. (My pappy also enjoyed his drink.) However there were black people there too (because the dirty commies were (gasp) NOT racist), and he didn't want to share his table with them, so he left. Again, I'm not proud of this, but unfortunately that is how he was, and how many other Americans were at the time.

It's sad how we divide amongst each other for whatever reason. Whether it's race, nationality, religion, or what have you, it's all sad.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations.

Rambling nonsense, in science there is no such term as "unproven theory" A theory is a construct and means to explain the available facts

Let’s see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

This is more nonsense. while it is true that the highest peak on the scale so far is 1998,( or 2005, depending on how you measure) the point is that that the TREND is what counts, every year temperatures vary, some years are hot, relative to their time, some are cold, relative to their time. However, the upwards trend is not in question if we look at 128 years of recorded weather history, this is the image this report provides See image That image is scary enough, but it gets worse as we compare it to millions of years
Full report here

3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures


Again, not quite right, the actual data shows a complex pattern of both increases and decreases, overall, it is correct that there hasnt been any dramatic changes over the 4-5 years these buoys have actually been in operation, however, this is consistent with known patterns that includes "quiet years" in 5-10 year periods. The 50-year perspective is whats important

Argo Blog:
The results of Domingues et al (2008) do not show a constant rate of warming. Instead there are periods of warming interspersed with multi-year cooling periods. There is also regional variability in the multi-decadal trends. Moreover, there is uncertainty in the results because of sparse sampling of the oceans and instrumental errors during the pre-Argo era. In spite of the variability and the uncertainty, the evidence for a 50-year warming trend in the oceans is compelling.

The Argo site and the Argo blog




4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than “normal” (whatever that is)


Since you give no source of this information, I can only take your word for it, but the term "arctic ice" on google, comes up with report after report confirming that the ice is thinning, melting, receding and dissappearing. Every climate report I've seen lately seems to say the same thing

"December 3 , 2008
Ice growth slows; Arctic still warmer than usual"


6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)


No, infact any data I can find shows polar bears are negatively affected by the climate change. again, this is either an extreme oversimplification of bits of data from an unnamed report, or simply a lie. Here is an actual article by a real scientist, showing a complex but worrying future for polar bears


7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather “sublimation”


http://www.livescience.com/environment/070611_gw_kilimanjaro.html

This is the first point that actually holds, its still melting tho, and snowfall is decreasing, I'm no glacier expert, so I'll leave this one alone.


The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows

Yes it is, as all sources indicates. You can say different, doesnt make it so.

9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)

no sources here either


10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below “normal” temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)

It is correct that 07/08 was the coolest winter since 2001, but it was still warmer than the average 20th century, and more importantly and the fundamental flaw in most of these points, seemingly contradicting data from 1 year does not "wipe out" the last 100 years of temperature increase. If the trend continues on a steady reversal for 10-15 years, THEN we are talking.




11) Al Gore's film was deemed “propaganda” in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was also just revealed that some of the footage in Al's film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie The Day After Tomorrow (ABC)



13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)
This seems to be based on this article...which has been refuted here and here


14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.


Irrelevant, see my earlier post.


15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)

No.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".[2] Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.


16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.


By "Many scientists" you mean of course this guy his prediction is based on 30 years cycles.

17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured



Again, wrong. it is true that we humans didnt create the greenhouse effect, and compared to the total effect it actually has, our contribution is miniscule. However, since the earth, or more precicely, the creatures living on it, are evolved to fit the environment as it is, even relatively small adjustments in the system can potentionally have catastrophic consequences. Or perhaps not, and thats one of the things about GW, we do not know for sure what happens, which could prove costly


I hope to have shown, with no other preparation than google at my disposal, that nearly all of the above points are based on shallow, irrellevant cherry-picking of data, unreliable sources. One to take a closer look at the sources of these claims, it turns out that either these points are willfull misrepresentations of the full source, or that the source itself turns out to be single individuals with no actual evidence to back it up.


I also found QM's entire post on a facebook post which ofcourse doesnt mean its not true, but it indicates that this is some kind of "fact-sheet" spread around the net with little or no actual source-checking like I've just done. Its one of those things that , just because someone's written it down and cited a few reports (dishonestly represented) people will believe it and think they've become "climate Skeptics".

A proper skeptic would check the sources.

14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.

Sunspots have nothing whatsoever to do with global warming, and we have no possible way of controlling them. Sunspots are a result of massive magnetic field lines that makes it harder for gas to move, and thus it creates areas of slightly cooler spots on the suns surface. Eventually this builds up a charge which can result in massive energy outbursts we call Solar flares. Because the sun is a sphere, normally these flares are pointed away from us, however if we are unlucky, and it does point towards earth, these outbursts could knock out our electricity, satellites and thus do all kinds of damage. But again, nothing to do with global warming.

As for the rest of your points. It is correct that there is variations in the earths temperature, noone objects to this. The concern about manmade global warming however, is not just based on a year-by-year measuring of temperature, it is based on findings that goes MILLIONS of years back, even hundreds of millions. By studying layers in the ground, we can conclusively say that the levels of CO2 are now way, way higher than ever before in history, if this was a RESULT of global warming, then the warming should already have been here. That doesnt have to mean it CAUSES global warming, but it is cause for CONCERN that it might.

This summer, for instance, The North Pole was in open water, for the first time in recorded history. Data about global temperatures are complicated and messy, if you pick and choose bits and pieces you fail to grasp the bigger picture. The OVERALL trend leaves little doubt: The planet is warming, and we are to blame.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let’s see what data points we now have:

1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures

4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)

5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than “normal” (whatever that is)

6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)

7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather “sublimation”

The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows

9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)

10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below “normal” temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)

11) Al Gore's film was deemed “propaganda” in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists

12) It was also just revealed that some of the footage in Al's film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie The Day After Tomorrow (ABC)

13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)

14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.

15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)

16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.

17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured

18) Several publications, including those that are warmist have recently written that the natural cycles of the earth may mask AGW. Give me a break.

19) 31,000 scientist have signed a petition against AGW!

---------------------------

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims


“I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical.” -

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
I most definitely would like something like this, Fusionaut. Thanks for the link!

you should be proud of voting this country into slavery. it takes a special kind of person to give up their freedom, not through violence, but through voluntary cooperation.


I would have been able to free a thousand more slaves if I could only have convinced them that they were slaves.
-Harriet Tubman, Underground Railroad Conductor (1820-1913)