Topic: Is it true that the Fed is privately owned - page 5. (Read 9428 times)

I like tit-for-tat as a moral standard myself, in part because "[it] is [] a highly effective strategy in game theory for the iterated prisoner's dilemma": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

I would not hit anybody on the head, but if somebody hits me on the head, I will hit that guy on the head as well. I will not do it harder, I will not do it twice, but I will hit the dude on the head.

i agree with you. but the fact that someone use violence, it's not a justification at all, for who accept this bad thing like a normal and civil thing.

Yeah I know what you wrote there. I was just wondering how the following dots vitally connected each other:

wahhabis and salafis , Freemason Jihadis, almost all world fiat money

I used to live in a student dorm. I did my best to keep the common room clean, because I felt it was a social obligation to do so. A social obligation to the community, so to say. My own room, however, I'd treat however the fuck I felt like. Sometimes that meant it was a uge mess. But I don't really think either your road/front lawn example nor my public/private room examples are the best examples in regards to the tradegy of the commons.

See, the funny thing is that you seem to use the tragedy of the commons in the exact opposite way as I would. To me, the tragedy of the commons proves that we need regulation. How else are we gonna stop the seas from being overfished? How else are we gonna stop global warming? How else are we gonna stop the rainforrests from being cut down? All of these things are perfect examples of the tragedy of the commons; it's perfectly rational economic behaviour for anyone to fish for fish, fly a plain or cut some wood, but if everyone starts doing it, it would end in disaster. That's why we need regulation.


Ok, who should I buy the land from, then? From the guy who ownes the land right now? How did he get to own it? By buying it from someone else? How did that guy get to own it then? If we go back far enough, someone must have just claimed the land at some point. Land was always there, nobody created it, so at some point somebody must have just declared the land to be his, almost certainly by using force upon those who disagreed. And now we have to pay for it to get it back? No. Fuck that. Somebody used force to get it in the first place, we can use force to take it back.

Land was always there, it was created by no one. It should therefore be owned by either no one, or by everyone. You shouldn't be able to claim it anymore than you should be able to claim the air we all breathe, or the water in all of the rivers and all of the oceans in the world.

Now, how do we get to decide who lives on the Champs-Élysées? I propose we let the market decide, BUT without any indiviual profiting from it. Whoever is willing to pay most gets to live there, but WE THE PEOPLE get to spend the money on something WE THE PEOPLE want to spend it on. This could be schools, hospitals, bridges, a policeforce, or whatever we decide it to be.

Also, I got to agree with bonker, just because you don't want violence to exist or even won't use any violence yourself (ever), that does not mean nobody else won't either. If you believe that, that to me seems like a very naïve worldview to be honest.

Take a look at that I was replying to:

Can you be more specific? Who are they?

fed is a private institution governed by public citizen
or
a public institution governed by private citizens?


sorry for my bad english, but i would to tell you the same one thing.

perhaps is you that don't recognize anything

let me do ONLY 1 exaple:
there are Big Countries governed by AN ALTERNATION OF OPPOSITE PUPPET GOVERNMENTS where Joung FAT ASSES take FIREARMS AT SUPERMARKET and dressin MIMETICAL way to SHOOT WITHOUT A REASON other people in the streets, in the office, in the bus, at school,
because they are a-lot-of-different-drugs-addict with the brain full of pharmacy stuff and meth...
And this schizophrenic are without any control, and there is no way to prevent them. No government that can do anything.

there are big countries where, after death penality they discover the innocence of a men, that pollute the same soil they live, that make war in asia for OIL a and after they spit on their veterans with P.T.S.D, that make war for peace and be violent to prevent violence, big country that are THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD THAT USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS and go to others sayin' "you cannot develop nuclear technology".

Perhaps you want to tell this when you speak about of a system that will collapse in some minutes, (ALREADY BEGUN TO COLLAPSE IMHO).
and where their citizen detain firearms in almost each house killing themselves, their families, their friends,
instead to fight the powers that make they sick.

In these Big Countries the only law is the LAW OF THE JUNGLE: peoples that win are peoples that have more power/money.

From "neanderthal age" to now, the "system" is always the same. No progress. No civilization. No education.
Only technological progress in the hands of peoples that have the same brain of aggressive monkey.
The framework change, but in the world there is "anarchy" (in the way you think) from century ago to now.

In the past, the more physical strongest peoples makes the rules. Now, rich peoples makes the rules.
That's anarchy intended by mainstream media, political puppet, an ignorant peoples.    

regards

 

Lol! and how do you plan to *enforce* the non-recognition of violence?

As I mentioned, your ridiculous system would collapse into mayhem within minutes.  Or perhaps you wouldn't recognise a bunch of crazed drug-addicts beating your empty skull in with baseball bats.

Maybe you missed it:
We don't recognize aggression as a valid means of acquiring land.

So you oppose the belief that people ought not initiate violence? why ought people initiate violence?

There is a third way of acquiring land: aggression.

Kind of completes the loop really, libertarianism is a painfully naive, undergraduate "philosophy" that would collapse into mayhem withing minutes.

In reality, Libertarianism is just a cheap attempt by drug users and cock-suckers to legitimise their dismal lifestyle.

My point: If all land is held "in common," the people who use that land have less care for it. Think about it: Would you throw a Styrofoam cup onto your front lawn? Yet, many people litter while driving down the road.

As to your other two questions:
Yes, we can't all live on the Champs-Élysées (even if all land is held in "common"). That's why, to prevent conflict, we recognize two ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation, and voluntary sale. That way, land goes to those who value it most.

The Fed is privately owned because there's nothing federal about it.  The Fed chairman is not a paid by the federal government the way public servants are.  In fact, it's difficult to find out who pays his salary.

Once again I see you are covering up the Freemason Jihadis and the Kalahari Vikings.  They are every bit as big a threat as your Tory-Bilderberg Trotskyite-communist Rothschild-surrogate ex-gold Pharaohs.

I worry what your real agenda is.

There is an awful lot of history behind how the Tory-Bilderberg Trotskyite-communist Rothschild-surrogate ex-gold Pharaohs ended up reconquering America in  1913 after it's failed Revolution and Civil War but it all goes back to the mistake of putting the stupid words gold and silver into the Constitution (even though they are irrelevant there) and the common misperception of idiots who confuse a "wealth" of some sort of a silly metal commodity with a "money" that is an economies' token of it's people's Prime Resource. After their black slaves were freed

According to the Constitution however, it is mandatory that the US Congress and it's Treasury ALONE be the sole owners, profiters from and operators of it's money and borrowers of it's debts.


Thus (above) the US Mint alone under the supervision of the Congress's Treasurer/Treasury must be the sole issuer and renter of it's money and the sole lawful authority as to the setting of the value of whatever it is that they decide to "coin".


The criminally private, for private profit Federal Reserve Printing Company is totally and completely corrupt and illegal.


One might see some sort of a chicken and an egg problem, and they would be totally correct, as the power to print money from nothing is the power to buy politicians to let you get away with doing so, and also to force them to do everything and anything else you wish them to. Only a public organization like the US Treasury should be doing this, and profiting from the lending of new money for the taxpayers.

Even though reconstruction was ended Ford was booming and the country was prosperous, the criminal Tory-traitor Wilson put the US into receivership to the Tory-Bilderberg Rothschild Surrogates in 1913 making all Americans white and black, bond slaves to the slave traders of Jekyll Island once again.

Sorry, I think I'm missing your point?

How are we gonna decide who gets to live on the Champs-Élysées? What has the Tradegy of the Commons got to do with this?

If he condemns the Tory-Bilderberg Trotskyite thermonuclear Pentagon-Communist's  Federal Reserve Printing Company empire of the Union of ZioNazi Socialist Republics, there is no valid reason for not condemning the Freemason-Jihadis and the Kalahari Vikings.  Each is a real as the other. 

We have to be alert...perhaps he is a sock puppet?

The lexicon he uses seems odd and outlandish to many because it is orders of magnitude superior to the Orwellian one consumed by the masses when defining the terms used to accurately describe the current global economic and political situation we are in. The Orwellian masses are utterly confounded when they encounter it.

You have misunderstood the situation.
The Fed is a "private organization" that is given powers above and beyond those that are available in the private sector. So the fed is a "quasi-private" organization. It is neither private nor public, it is in the gray area.
Sure, some "libertarians" might mistakenly think that it is directly owned by the gov't, but that's no better than mistakenly thinking "Oh, it's owned by private banks, so the "an-caps" should be going after the banks." The Fed does what it does on the authority of the federal government. It has the power to control how much legal tender is printed; legal tender that is recognized by the federal government as legal tender. It also controls interest rates. If I started a business tomorrow I couldn't just decide to do these things, any more than you can just decide how the "an-caps" classify the Fed.
The Government started the Fed, it is a quasi-private institution, the government can end it or audit it, but it's not going to, because the Fed is the only reason that the government can continue spending as much as it does.
You can blame the banks but half of them would have failed years ago without the fed, and the other half would be a hundredth of the size because they wouldn't have gotten the easy money/capital to gamble billions on derivatives and HFT schemes. There would be big banks without the Fed, sure, but the Fed completely redefined the meaning of "big."

Sometimes people say "Lol I just entirely disproved all the libertarians/anarchists, because they say that there would be absolutely no such thing as fractional reserve banking without the Fed, and that's not true!" (Ignore for a second that no one actually makes that argument; the argument being referred to is completely mischaracterized.)
I can do stuff like that too. "I just entirely disproved all black people, because I just heard this one black person mispronounce 'fifty' as 'fitty," and that's incorrect!"

The Fed is quasi-government at best.  The most accurate identification is the Fed is a cartel of banks.  The Fed does not fall under any of the 3 branches of government: judicial, legislative, or executive.  They do not receive funding appropriated by Congress but are subject to Congressional oversight (lol).  Federal Reserve Employees are not part of the US Civil Service System and are not covered by government employees’ health insurance or pension programs.

So to the OP, yes, you could very well view the Fed as being privately owned.