Topic: European Union is robbing its citizens' bank accounts. 9.9% to be confiscated. - page 3. (Read 33195 times)

The fact that I see a certain relationship between the voter and the state does not make me a statist. I do not accept the validity of the state as representatives of the people. But the people that vote for it don't care whether I accept the state or not. They are still going to use its force against me and others who do not harm anyone but have different opinions.

I do see a distinction between voting to reduce and increase the state. However if someone is voting to reduce the state, like a libertarian, he is still legitimizing actions of the state.



The victims become the aggressor they try to defeat. They just try to avert aggression away from themselves and point it towards others through the mechanism of the state. Most of the time they are increasing and in every case they are perpetuating the use of aggression and force.



I guess that is kind of what I am saying. People voted for a broken system that uses force and coercion (the state) to get what they want. I'm saying that this outcome is to be expected if you use force and coercion.

BTW the writing has been on the wall for a very long time and the events that are now unfolding in Cyprus have been expected by many.

And yes, there is nothing that can be done about it now. People can only look for the real causes and fix them. But we know that is not going to happen.

JoelKatz is of course correct 100% in this argument. And I can base this conclusion on a very simple reasoning, the basics of contract law.

A contract is only valid when both parties have entered it willingly and while fully informed of all the relevant information and facts. For example, A offers for sale a Rolex watch to B while A knows that it is a fake and B does not, even if all other requirements for the contract are met such as offer acceptance and consideration, even if A offered the Rolex and B accepted it and paid for it. And even if the contract has a clause like "if a party to the contract does not understand all the terms of the contract, the contract is valid anyway" it changes nothing. The moment it is found out that the Rolex is fake, the contract is off and in fact it is not not a contract it is fraud.

Deeplink, you are telling people: "it is your fault that you have bought this fake Rolex, nothing you can do  now about it, hahaha".

Your views are Statist because they accept the validity of the state as representatives of the people when it comes to economic and social policy. For example:

You see the relationship between the voter and the State as part to whole. This is a Statist view. The analogous NAP view would be that the relationship is between victim and aggressor.

You draw no distinction between voting to reduce the State and voting to increase the State. When the State comes to you and says "your money or your life", you see no difference between saying "please take my money and do not kill me" and "please kill as many people as possible". This is a Statist view.

A victim may use whatever means they think best to defeat an aggressor. They share culpability with the aggressor only if they act to increase the aggression used.

Wikipedia: Statism is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.

Please explain in what way the views I expressed are statist. I like to think that I live by the non-aggression principle and believe this is irreconcilable with the state.



Absolutely. But this analogy does not fit the case of the voter and the state. The voter and the state are the same. By voting you become the criminal because you give permission to the rulers to say "your money or your life" to others.



Yes but that would be case 3 below: You have moral objections. What I meant here was that you choose not to vote but also accept and support whichever outcome.



Yes you can use any method to defend yourself. But not a method that would hurt others outside of the mob. Because than you would be no better than the mob.



I disagree. My views are not statist and as an anarchist I am kind of offended by that.

An individual may defend himself, but by voting he becomes the criminal called the state. And the state uses force against others to get what it wants.

I agree, and I reject all of your statist views.

Nonsense. If a criminal says "your money or your life", you can choose to give your money without losing your right to complain about that loss.

Nonsense. If someone asks you whether they should kill your family by shooting them or by setting your house on fire, you can choose not to answer without losing your right to complain about the choice and outcome.

Nonsense. If a mob is choosing whether to cut off both your legs or just one of them, you can use any methods available to you to get just one leg cut off without in any way legitimizing the mob or the range of choices.

I utterly reject all three of your statist views. An individual may defend himself from the State's threatened evils however he thinks best without thereby becoming responsible for those evils.

That is the philosophical difference of opinion between statism and anarchy again. I haven't yet seen many occasions where either side considered to change their opinion.

In my view you either:

1) Vote and agree to support the outcome of the election. Even if you voted for someone else. Those are the rules which are known to all participants in advance. You have no right to complain because by voting you have legitimized to be governed by whoever wins.

2) Do not vote and choose to accept to support the outcome of the election.

3) Do not vote due to moral objections. For example if you believe it is morally wrong to use force against people except in self-defense, you would act against your own ethics if you voted. Because by that act you legitimize that the government is allowed to use its monopoly on violence upon others that don't agree with your point of view.

I don't agree. I reject every version of this argument. Specifically, I reject:

1) If you don't vote, you have no right to complain if leaders do bad things. You had a chance and you gave it up.

2) If you vote and the leaders you choose win, you have no right to complain if they do bad things. You got what you asked for.

3) If you vote and the leaders you choose lose, you have no right to complain if those who won do bad things. You lost fair and square.

4) If you don't vote, you are responsible for what your government does. You could have acted to stop it and failed to act.

5) If you vote and the leaders you choose win, you are responsible for what they do. You put them in power.

You can vote in self-defense or for the lesser of two evils without becoming responsible for the evils elected leaders do.

Not correct.
Bankrupt bank always have assets to be divided between its clients and lenders upon liquidation.
The highest priority to get compensation usually have holders of current accounts (ones not generating interest) and they usually recover up to 100%, after them, with descending priority go savings accounts, then time deposits, then bonds, shareholders, etc.

But in the case of Cyprus, it is going to be in absolutely different way. They plan to steal every penny over 100k on rich accounts and then use it to pay compensation to "insured accounts" under 100k in communist style.

Yes. Your payments would go to the banks creditors, including you. And if you went bankrupt, it would be the reverse -- the bank would still have to pay out your savings to your creditors yet they would lose out on any unsecured loans you had.

Oversimplifying, when something goes bankrupt, all of its assets go into a pool that is used to pay off its liabilities. Any remaining liabilities dissolve.

I was wondering about this yesterday. If a bank goes bankrupt, you would loose all (uninsured) savings, but you'd still be expected to repay the debts and mortgage you have with them?

Just keep in mind crowds of poor people who don't have any bank deposit, but only credits.
Most of them will become jobless as many companies will go bankrupt after losing their capitals over 100k.

It starts and ends with the people that have voted for the current system and policies.


No, the insured part below 100K is actually untouched AFAIK


But the vast majority of these ordinary people have voted and by voting they legitimize and agree to play the game. They are not innocent. Maybe they misjudged the effects of the policies they voted for or they voted anyway for personal gain. I argue it doesn't matter. If you shoot someone, then say you didn't know a gun could kill a person, you are still responsible and guilty for his death.

In other words, the innocent people are also guilty because by voting they agree to accept the decisions their appointed leaders take for them.

The only real innocent are the unborn and the children that will have to bear the debt and suffer in the ruins their parents are going to leave them.

1. correct! if you deposited money into a bank that takes stupid risk like lending money to countries that cannot repay, than you should loose money, and not expect that someone will save you. ok, deposits below €100k should be exempt as they are deposited by large number of not so well off people. and indeed they are.

2. correct!

3. German or any other taxpayer should not pay for this!! correct again!

4. If nobody in Germany is saying Cyprus should not be bailed out than shame on you. Cyprus banks in trouble should not be bailed out, except perhaps by people of Cyprus.

5. People who created this mess are, and please I will elaborate, Germans! How? By developing Euro currency, forcing, one way or other, forcing others to adopt it, then controling money supply via ECB dominated by Germans, and ultimately allowing other nations to take on absurd levels of credit, again provided by German banks which have huge surpluses of money generated by German economy exporting products to other Euro EU countries.

I could go even further but this should suffice.

Russian banks in Cyprus are solvent and need no rescue. Even if they were in trouble, EU could simply let banks go bankrupt. This would automaticaly shave all savings accounts above 100k€ in total.

So the argument that EU spends billions to protect Russians it beyond false. It's stupid.

Russia? http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20130326-48765.html#.UVNM8Vfdg6w

* I'm not serious, though

In 1933 they said "all the jews are mofiosos" and seized their assets to recover economy...
...80 years after the history repeats, but "the jews" are replaced by "the russians".

Do you know the name of political regime which finds fast and easy ways to resolve complicated problems?

Wait... Arent they all Russian mafioso?

The list of the guilty is so long I wouldn't even know where to start. The innocent people are depositors in banks that were purportedly government insured and ordinary people around the world whose governments are taking on massive debt and adopting greater and greater austerity measures just to pay for their past mistakes.

Update: I wouldn't include those who consciously chose to put money beyond the insured amounts into banks paying unusually high interest (without investigating how they managed to get those interest rates or how stable the banks were) among the innocent.

Agree, that's actually what I meant.

However, it can not be that other now pay the profits that where generated by that risks.

Still on this bank accounts massive interests where paid, backed by those risks. A full bailout would also mean to bail out the money generated by those interests. A bail out with money from people that didn't receive those interests. How is that better?

Who are responsible in your opinion? And who are the "innocent" people you're referring to?