The disadvantage of anarchy is that guns are the only way to settle these disputes.
I suppose that's why McDonalds and Burger King employees are always shooting each other? Or Brinks and ADT?
Topic: Is it true that the Fed is privately owned - page 9. (Read 9405 times)
The disadvantage of anarchy is that guns are the only way to settle these disputes.
I suppose that's why McDonalds and Burger King employees are always shooting each other? Or Brinks and ADT?Take away the state (monopoly on violence) and I would argue that we might indeed see some 'wars' between nowadays peaceful competitors. Kinda like how we have drugswars in Mexico at the moment. Since it (drugs) is not regulated, the competitors are not peacefully competing with each other at all. Intead, they're fighting violently over who gets to sell their stuff.
But I agree, we're drifting way to far from the original topic.
Yes, the FED is privately owned, although in a indirect way, and yes, they're fucking us over big time.
The disadvantage of anarchy is that guns are the only way to settle these disputes.
I suppose that's why McDonalds and Burger King employees are always shooting each other? Or Brinks and ADT?No reason to change the subject.
You are being silly now comparing political disputes in an anarchy with selling burgers.
Anyway, turns out I was wrong. The Bilderberg are the true owners and they own google as well now.
http://www.infowars.com/google-berg-global-elite-transforms-itself-for-technocratic-revolution/
The disadvantage of anarchy is that guns are the only way to settle these disputes.
I suppose that's why McDonalds and Burger King employees are always shooting each other? Or Brinks and ADT?No reason to change the subject.
The disadvantage of anarchy is that guns are the only way to settle these disputes.
I suppose that's why McDonalds and Burger King employees are always shooting each other? Or Brinks and ADT?No reason to change the subject.
The disadvantage of anarchy is that guns are the only way to settle these disputes.
I suppose that's why McDonalds and Burger King employees are always shooting each other? Or Brinks and ADT? Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference. The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns.
And the poor, who are by definition more numerous than even the praetorian class, will also have guns. If it comes to a shooting war... well, there's a reason kings don't have a lot of power anymore. 
Just like there can never be a millionaires party, there can never be a praetorian party.
But Marx was wrong - they don't operate as a single class. They bicker and dispute and form political movements and the poor split as well. The disadvantage of anarchy is that guns are the only way to settle these disputes. Democracy is a nicer way of doing things even if your particular idea will never be voted for.
Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference. The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns.
And the poor, who are by definition more numerous than even the praetorian class, will also have guns. If it comes to a shooting war... well, there's a reason kings don't have a lot of power anymore. George Orwell actually wrote a great article on this issue, a couple of years before he wrote 1984.
He agreed with you, and said that the emergence of guns (muskets) shifted the power from the view to the many. From the elite to the people.
However, with the emergence of weapons of mass destruction (the atom bomb had just been invented), he predicted that since the power would shift back from the many to the view. Makes sense, he argued, because it would put the weapons back in the hand of the elite.
And look at what happened.
I haven't got the time to find the article for you right now though, sorry.
Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference. The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns.
And the poor, who are by definition more numerous than even the praetorian class, will also have guns. If it comes to a shooting war... well, there's a reason kings don't have a lot of power anymore. George Orwell actually wrote a great article on this issue, a couple of years before he wrote 1984.
He agreed with you, and said that the emergence of guns (muskets) shifted the power from the view to the many. From the elite to the people.
However, with the emergence of weapons of mass destruction (the atom bomb had just been invented), he predicted that since the power would shift back from the many to the view. Makes sense, he argued, because it would put the weapons back in the hand of the elite.
And look at what happened.
I haven't got the time to find the article for you right now though, sorry.
Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference. The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns.
And the poor, who are by definition more numerous than even the praetorian class, will also have guns. If it comes to a shooting war... well, there's a reason kings don't have a lot of power anymore. Just like there can never be a millionaires party, there can never be a praetorian party.
3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World. The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world. We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact.
Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.I know what you mean. I spent time in Singapore and London - the class of people who live at the top there have no country or race. They have billions in capital and are free to live off their investments close to tax free while their maids pay taxes.
Question is; isn't that how capitalism is meant to work? People who inherit capital live tax free off investments. Their investments create jobs for the peons. The peon's salaries create demand for products which leads to economic growth. All seems to be working as planned.
Yes. it's exactly what Marx predicted would happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Economy.2C_history_and_society
Marx got a lot right in terms of analysis. Its the politics he got wrong - he didn't expect the middle class to split and the working class to join in the split endlessly voting in alternative middle class parties.
The answer is YES. It is supposedly a public/ private entity what ever the hell that is.. but the simple truth is that the whole system revolves around the golden rule.. "he who has the gold makes the rules" the ultra wealth make the rules that line their pockets at everyone else's expense.
Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference. The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns.
And the poor, who are by definition more numerous than even the praetorian class, will also have guns. If it comes to a shooting war... well, there's a reason kings don't have a lot of power anymore. Just like there can never be a millionaires party, there can never be a praetorian party. Some poor will support one party/clan/religion. Others another. The poor are not a single group and don't approve on one another. Its always been the way and always will be.
3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World. The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world. We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact.
Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.I know what you mean. I spent time in Singapore and London - the class of people who live at the top there have no country or race. They have billions in capital and are free to live off their investments close to tax free while their maids pay taxes.
Question is; isn't that how capitalism is meant to work? People who inherit capital live tax free off investments. Their investments create jobs for the peons. The peon's salaries create demand for products which leads to economic growth. All seems to be working as planned.
Yes. it's exactly what Marx predicted would happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Economy.2C_history_and_society
Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference. The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns.
And the poor, who are by definition more numerous than even the praetorian class, will also have guns. If it comes to a shooting war... well, there's a reason kings don't have a lot of power anymore. 3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World. The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world. We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact.
Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.Not run by them but seriously influenced. If millionaires formed a political party, they would have the overwhelming majority of Congress, the Judiciary and the Presidency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/if-the-millionaires-party-ever-gets-its-act-together-watch-out/ They haven't but you can't expect those institutions to act hard against millionaires can you?
Likewise you can't expect much action billionaires disapprove of.
Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference. The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns.
3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World. The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world. We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact.
Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.Not run by them but seriously influenced. If millionaires formed a political party, they would have the overwhelming majority of Congress, the Judiciary and the Presidency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/if-the-millionaires-party-ever-gets-its-act-together-watch-out/ They haven't but you can't expect those institutions to act hard against millionaires can you?
Likewise you can't expect much action billionaires disapprove of.
3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World. The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world. We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact.
Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.Not run by them but seriously influenced. If millionaires formed a political party, they would have the overwhelming majority of Congress, the Judiciary and the Presidency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/if-the-millionaires-party-ever-gets-its-act-together-watch-out/ They haven't but you can't expect those institutions to act hard against millionaires can you?
Likewise you can't expect much action billionaires disapprove of.
3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World. The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world. We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact.
Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World. The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world. We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact.
Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.I know what you mean.
No - thats an implementation detail. As is the ECB and the Fed. I meant that there is indeed an oligarchy of rich powerful people who are beyond taxation and largely beyond the law. But that is how you would expect things to work...in any game there will be winners and inheritance means that some people are born certain to win.
Jump to: