Thomasio

On a personal level I have adjusted to the circumstances. I've realized that most likely there won't be any change in our political system until it collapses. It may switch between center right and far right once in a while, but it will remain authoritarian and that's about it. My wife mostly shares my point of view and we are prepared for the unavoidably coming collapse of the fiat money system, while at same time living within it. Before you get that wrong, no, I'm not one of those so called "preppers", I'm one of those who believe in hard assets. We own our house, the loan is paid off, we're retired, receive a small pension and our savings are invested in real gold and silver. Aside of that I engage in political discussions wherever I can find one. This isn't limited to the internet, the web is just one place where I speak up. You will find me in the opposition of our city council, where I can't reach much as long as my opinion faces a vast majority of (bribed) people who believe in the eternal future of our current system, simply because they benefit from it, but over the years my wife and me did make a few differences, which got us the respect of the people in the neighborhood. The reason why I'm in this particular forum is, I was curious about libertarian ideas. Before I got here, I had not heard about the extreme libertarian position of abolishing all government. When I got that idea, I again got it wrong on start, thinking libertarians want instant revolution, where later on I discovered at least in this forum here most people plan on spending half an eternity under the current system before getting to what they want. Furthermore on start I thought libertarians should stick together against authoritarians, but during the last months I had to notice, there are quite a few people in here who prefer right wing authoritarians over left wing libertarians. All together gives quite a mix of opinions, where I personally believe, something in the middle of all of that may be the best thing. Last but not least, when I'm in a discussion, I kinda like a bit provocative statements, not too harsh, just enough to get some arguing going, because I believe that's an atmosphere in which progress is made.

I would believe, even though the factors mentioned in this research may have some kind of influence, compared to the bigger factors it would be so tiny, it wouldn't make any statistical difference. The biggest factor that influences the lifespan is access to clean water. Compared to that nearly all other factors are minimal. Next in the list would be either living in a nice climate or have access to shelter and energy to heat that shelter in winter. Next would be access to medical care and the quality of that medical care. And so on, and so on, there are 100s of way more important factors. Before you get to the speed of natural aging due to the size of the body, you have things like air pollution, the frequency of infectious deseases appearing in the area, the questions whether your income allows you to buy healthy food and how much time your job leaves you to not only afford but in fact eat healthy food, your mental stability, especially the question, how much the advertising for fast food can distract you from the influence it has on your health and many other factors. The decreased lifespan of men relative to women comes from the fact, men on average put themselves into more danger. Whether it's jobs or hobbies, on average far more men than women die from accidents in their jobs in mining or steel production, the vast majority of soldiers are men and there are many other dangerous activities mostly men engage in. If I look into my parents generation (born in the 30s) I have a pretty clear idea, of why that generation today has FAR more momen left and it's quite obvious that statistics about their lifespan will always show women to live longer. As far as I know, even our evolution is already adjusting to the fact that throughout all of history there has always been a shortage of men, because at all times so many men were killed in wars. Can't name the source, so don't take it for a fact, but if I remember right, there are statistics saying humans have slightly more male children than female ones, which leads to a shortage of women in civilized countries that do not engage in wars anymore.

That's precisely what the 1% wants you to believe and that's why the media, owned by this 1% suggests just that. Under authoritarian government as we have had for a loooooong time now, as long as there is a tax to be paid, the "trick" of the rich is to convince the middle class they would be so close to the top that tax breaks for the rich would effect them, therefore a tax on the top earners would mean the middle class to pay more taxes. That's how the top earners get the middle class to vote for politics that cuts taxes for the rich, even though THAT is what in the end raises the taxes for the middle class, simply because the poor don't have anything they could pay taxes from and after the rich get their taxes lowered, the only ones remaining who could pay a tax is the middle class, therefore within the current authoritarian system the ones paying the highest taxes is the upper end of the middle class. Obviously, if we would abolish taxes all together, the middle class would experience the biggest relief, because they are the ones currently carrying the biggest burden, but as long as we do not have a free society, as long as a government is in place that does charge taxes, the choice is, either the middle class pays, or the rich pay, or both pay. Cutting taxes for one side without cutting spendings automatically increases taxes for the other side or increases national debt, or both. That's precisely what has happened during the last decades, tax breaks for the rich and the corporations without cuts in spendings led to higher taxes on the middle class and exploding national debt. There just isn't an option for all to pay less as long as government and their spending isn't at least partially abolished. You might argue, lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, which I don't doubt, but as long as spendings aren't cut, the ones paying for those spendings are precisely those who get the newly created jobs PLUS the upper middle class paying even more to compensate the cuts for the rich. It's best described in this video where you can clearly see just how far away, literally unreachable "rich" is for the upper middle class within an authoritarian system.

What I'm adding here, or rather what I would like to add here is a bit more incentive to get changes done rather sooner than later. I'm aware I'm not adding anything new to the movement, I'm just trying to participate and push a bit for action rather than wait and do nothing. I AM actually doing things (as far as I can), i.e. I'm writing books about it and publish them. It might not be of any use for you, because it's all in German, but at least there's an introduction and a summary on my homepage in english: http://www.piranhazone.com/index.php?language=1&page=wohlstand My sister lives 1500km away from me and her children are grown up by now, so I'm not much involved there anymore, other than some normal family contacts. She never was anywhere near authoritarian, but appears to have a natural talent for explaining to her kids how the world works without applying any force, meaning even though she isn't actively involved in peaceful parenting, she got it right by herself. The US and the most fertile ground for libertarian ideas ......... I don't think so. The US has one of the strongest political systems in the world with the least choice for voters. A 2 party system, consisting of an authoritarian right party and an authoritarian extreme right party, that leaves so little room for any progressive ideas that someone who doesn't have anything in common with either of them has no chance to get anywhere, unless he joins one of them. Why would someone like Bernie Sanders join the democrats while his ideas are way off anything the democrats have been doing so far? Take a look at the political compass http://politicalcompass.org/usstates?ak=on&az=on&il=on&ny=on even though that's 8 years old. Check the boxes for all the blue states and you will discover, there literally is NONE anywhere outside right wing authoritarian. In fact you will discover, on average blue states are closer to libertarian ideas than red states are. There literally is no choice. The by far more fertile ground for libertarian ideas you find in the so called tax heavens, the small countries, like Luxembourg or Malta, who have the financial freedom to do many things bigger countries can only dream of.

I have a few ideas of how we could use the current system against itself, like here: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46309-why-i-believe-the-system-will-hit-the-fan/#entry424403 I had to notice the downvote underneath telling me someone doesn't like the idea. But then postings like this one https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46355-upb-summarized-for-my-young-students-teenagers-i-love-this-video/#entry424854 tell me, I'm not alone in thinking that voting against the ruling class is the key to success. I only go one step further on that, because there is no libertarian party in my country to vote for. I believe it doesn't even matter which party you vote for, as long as it isn't one of the parties of the ruling class, in fact the example from Germany shows, you don't even have to vote for anything, all you have to do is express in surveys that you will not elect party x nor y, as long as they do this and that. Of course not everyone is asked in surveys, that's why we have to spread out this strategy, so the ones who do get into a survey give the right answers. I believe, once a majority of people express libertarian ideas in surveys and say, they won't elect democrats nor republicans as long as they steal taxes from workers, we will at least get a step into our direction, because both parties will rather give up part of their "income" than lose their power all together. This way we can be active and work step by step in our direction. Either way, even if my ideas wouldn't work, I'm still not willing to sit on my hands and wait until the ongoing theft has ruined me or the children in my family (I don't have any, but my sister does, I count that as family). I believe talking about what can be done, even if it doesn't bring practical results instantly is still far better than let the thieves get away with their stealing for several more generations. I'm quite sure, sooner or later someone will come up with a working idea that's easy enough to actually do it and the more we talk about it, the more likely and the sooner we find it.

Well, yes, I'd love to vote libertarian, yet there isn't any libertarian candidate. In the US it's quite obvious, Trump, Clinton, Sanders, all authoritarians. Here in Europe it's about the same, even though most countries have more than two parties, there's no real libertarian party. Literally all governments in all of Europe are authoritarian right. http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart The closest we have to libertarians is actually the Left Party in Germany. http://www.politicalcompass.org/germany2013 The FDP has been kicked out of parliament because their position on the right and slightly libertarian didn't even get them 5% of the votes and the Green Party always does a coalition with the SPD, which gives in the end an authoritarian result. Furthermore, even though some parties in some European countries started out on the libertarian left wing, right wing authoritarians always abuse the power of their friends in the banking system, to block and blackmail any left wing libertarians into complying with authoritarian ideas, as they have done in Greece and Portugal and are about to do in Spain (where I'm not too sure, whether or not these left wingers were actually authoritarian left from start). In short: Right wing libertarians do not exist in Europe and left wing libertarians are suppressed through blackmailing, so the suggestion to vote for a libertarian candidate, as good as it sounds, is just not possible. Therefore changing peoples voting habits doesn't work either, because there is no possible libertarian vote to suggest. Last but not least, you again have a sentence in there saying: "Using force to deport illegal immigrants is legit....", which right away leads to the same question again: Who shall finance that and how shall it be organized? Wouldn't organizing that already be a rudimentary form of government? Anyway, I'm looking forward to your ideas of how to get from A to B.

For one I believe everyone is afraid of losing the little they have. No matter how big the inequality, no matter how poor someone is, if you live in Bangladesh and have a job that pays only $30 a month, you would still be afraid of losing it, because by the time a better world arises out of the collapse, you and your children would be starved to death. That's why even most of the poorest people are afraid of system failure. For two, under the current circumstances in the world, the power that has the most resources stored and might control the formation of the new system is China. We might end up in worldwide communism under Chinese laws and that almost nobody in the western world wants. I myself believe, it would be far better to actively change the system into a better one, before it implodes and leaves it up to the most powerful people to set the rules for a new one, because I believe, even if it wouldn't be the Chinese, these most pwerful people wouldn't setup anything remotely close to a free society. But to answer your question: Under specific circumstances even an elected Trump could be removed from office, but it would require some huge scandal, like we had with Nixon and Watergate. Movements for humans rights or a free society won't do it.

I have, but he doesn't talk about what we should do today. He talks about an ideal world in which all people share the same idea of a free society and the effect that under such circumstances everybody would behave automatically. I actually agree to this, it just doesn't help me today. The ideal free society works only if it exists worldwide, the time to get to that might be several 100s of years and there's no way to get it started throughout the whole world all at the same time. Some country somewhere has to get started, show the rest of the world how it works and watch the rest of the world copying the idea after they discover how much better it is. But as long as a free society exists only in a specific region or country it has to protect itself, especially against religious fundamentalists. (To my mind a free society would have to defend itself against religion even if it were a worldwide free society, but let's put that aside for the moment.) That's why I was asking what we can do today to defend ourselves today against the ongoing theft by the government, because we have the human right to self defense, but somehow that right isn't valid for the tax laws as long as there is a government. It seems to me, not doing anything but wait until the ruling class abolishes itself would take way longer than I'm willing to let the ruling class get away with ignoring my human rights. That would lead also to my other question, because letting them get away with the stealing for several more generations is identical to criminals getting away with their crimes if only they don't get caught (and shot) in the act.

First of all, politics nowadays is nothing more than a corrupt bunch of individuals taking bribes to their personal advantage in exchange for executing the will of large multinational corporations and the super rich. Making one of the richest people in the country president only skips the bribing part, meaning Trump would be able to execute what he wants without spending money on bribery. An example of how that looks in the end you can find in Italy, if you look up the actions of Silvio Berlusconi and the crimes he got charged with after he lost his post in politics. Even the story of how he got into office is almost identical of what Trump claims today. "I'm rich, I'm not vulnerable to bribery, I can and will do what I like, that's why I will make a difference." In addition with a whole bunch of empty promises Berlusconi made, where by now we all know he never had any intention of keeping them, people believed him, on top of having had enough of the previous government and elected him. What happened then was the opposite of the promises, aside of giving gigantic advantages to the businesses he owned, while in office he actually tried introducing laws that would have put himself outside the law, so nobody could prosecute him afterwards. That said, it might make a tiny little difference for the general population on near meaningless details, whether you elect a corrupt government or put the bribers directly into office, but the oligarchy sits in the core of the system, meaning no matter what change in government might make what kind of difference, it still remains a government that steals from the people.

Who shall finance that private organisation and who sets the rules that private organization shall enforce? Who shall enforce the ostracism, how do you make sure that guy cannot come back and who shall pay for that? (Asylum seekers in Europe often engage in criminal actions like shoplifting, burglary, etc., when caught they are usually expelled from the continent, but mostly try to come back instantly, meaning a society that want's to enforce and maintain ostracism has to keep track of 10s of 1000s of expelled criminals.) Who will warn the area wherever a criminal goes to about the danger he poses to society, or is it morally ok if one society dumps their criminals on some other society? What would your society do, if some other society dumped their criminals on you? If a criminal agrees to rehab, but has no money, who shall pay for that? Isn't all that already a rudimentary form of government, including paying a rudimentary form of taxes, only without the huge downsides our current governments have? Wouldn't a private security organization have all the exact same downsides a police force under government has, including corruption, PLUS the additional downside of being profit oriented and therefore more expensive? You didn't answer, what happens if a crime could not be prevented. Do criminals who are smart enough not to get caught in the act get away for free, or will you have some kind of (private) police force that hunts the criminals and puts them on trial and if trial, who will finance that? Last but not least, you didn't answer: What can we do to defend ourselves today from the ongoing theft by the government, or better what would be the morally right thing to do against it?

I like the concept, I agree fully, it would give a near perfect society. I have just a few follow up questions, regarding self defense. If someone attempts to kill you, you may apply force to prevent him from doing that, I guess that's agreed? But how far does that remain moral? If you prevent him from doing that right there, do you leave him free to try again the next day? Lock him up for a given amount of time to make sure he can't try again for a while? Kill them to make sure they can never try again? If in Cologne 1000+ immigrants gang attack women, how far does self defense go? If the women prevent them from doing that right there, do they have to leave them free to try again the next day? Should other people come to help the women defend themselves? How far can that help go? Kick them out of the country but leave them free to try the same in some other place? Lock them up for a while, so they can't do that anymore for a while? Given the fact it was like 99% sure something like this would happen under the given circumstances, should the country prevent further immigrants from coming into the country, to prevent these things before they happen? Since the government not only tries, but in fact does steal from us, how far should our self defense go? Should we actively abolish government as soon as possible, or wait, do nothing, accept their immoral behavior for the time being and hope they might one day get to the same moral principles we hold? In general: If any such thing happened and the victim couldn't prevent it, should the criminal get punished or get away with it for free? If a punishment is moral, then who should decide what punishment is apropriate and who should enforce the punishment? Or am I completely on the wrong path and you're talking about an utopia that cannot be achieved as long as just one human anywhere on earth doesn't follow this same moral principle?

The word libertarian is by definition the opposite of authoritarian. On the political stage Trump vs Clinton or whatever, that's authoritarian right vs authoritarian left. They differ only in how much they want to steal and who shall get the stolen money. That's why I don't support either of them.

I believe what Hawking means is not the elite leaving, but the workers. If the ones who actually produce the wealth get rid of BOTH, the takers on the top as well as the receivers on the bottom, the working people could indeed achieve a much better society. If I got that right, Hawking is afraid, the takers might destroy life as we know it, long before the workers could convert the corrupt system into a free society, therefore he suggests, leaving is the better option. I'm not so sure how quickly this corrupt system will develop sufficiently secure space travel to make it possible, but given recent progress in science and technology, I can understand someone who believes space travel might be available before a free society could become a reality on earth. I just imagine the faces of the remaining people, how they would look after the workers left and that alone is worth the thought, even if it doesn't come true.

Sorry if I skip the rest, I guess it would get far too long to keep up if I answered all of it. Just let me pick out one point that I can easily and beyond doubt prove. There is one extreme example ..... let me show you. The very first thing, above and beyond the profit they make out of it is the desire of the ruling class to stay in control. We live in democracy, so unless you expect a completely rigged voting system that doesn't admit the actual results of elections, the ruling class will do whatever makes voters vote for the puppets they have in place in politics. Now look at Germany and nuclear power. (I'm not judging whether or not either of the sides in this was right, I'm not saying what I would want, I'm just using the example to show, how politics can be altered.) For several decades, starting in the early 70s, loads of demonstrations protested against nuclear power in Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Germany Blockades of transports of nuclear waste, where people tied themselves to the rails of the railway and stuff like that. Absolutely all surveys showed, more than half the population was against nuclear power in Germany. But nothing happened. In all election polls people would say something like: "I don't like nuclear power, I don't like our government supporting nuclear power, but I will elect them anyway, because over all they are "the lesser evil". There simply was no need for the ruling class to do anything, they could use massive police force to suppress the anti nuclear movement and still be sure their puppets got reelected. When after Chernobyl the center left government together with the Green Party gave the strengthened anti nuclear movement some credit and finally tried to make some laws to reduce nuclear power with the goal to replace it entirely with renewable energy, political propaganda had them lose the next elections, center right won the next elections and they promptly reversed the decision to get out of nuclear power. In 2010 10s of 1000s of people had violent protests in Munich, still the center right government decided to extend the runtimes of several nuclear power plants in Germany beyond the advised lifetime of these plants, simply because all election polls showed, whether they do that or not, makes no difference on the outcome of the next elections, the majority of voters would reelect center right as "the lesser evil". Then came Fukushima and things turned upside down within a week. The very next poll showed, public opinion was now so strong against nuclear power, that center left and center right COMBINED wouldn't even have 50% of the votes anymore. If the center parties had kept their support for nuclear power, the Left Party and the Green Party would have won the next elections by a landslide. It didn't take any change in government, literally no change whatsoever, but a simple difference in election polls, that within the very same center right government switched the policy. Within one week 7 reactors were shut down and the decision was made to shut down the rest by 2022. THIS is how you change something within the current system. You change the public opinion to a point where they will not elect the puppets of the ruling class anymore and the ruling class will INSTANTLY, literally within DAYS change their policies until their puppets get the votes again. Again, I'm not saying I'm against nuclear power, this is just a perfect example of how public opinion can alter politics.

Now what @Torero? Do you want an instant switch to a free society, or do you want to maintain the current system for the moment while a slow transition over several generations takes place by itself? You cannot have both, either you abolish the system we have, or you maintain it. If you want small steps to alter the current system, you still have to maintain the rest of the system and you have to make sure that at any given time on the way, the combination of the part that has been transformed and the part that has not, will not give you some unsolvable problems. Starting from the current situation, the first step towards changing the system to a free society can only come from the currently ruling class, anything else would require a revolution. You may be able to set up some petitions and demonstrate in the streets for a change, you can wait and discuss the topic until the majority of people is convinced, but actually doing something to change something without revolution can only be done by the current rulers. The enforcers would obviously be the same ones that enforce todays laws. The criteria are results of elections. There is no need to take away the control "again", they already have that control and without revolution they won't lose it, so all we have to do is, once changes have reached a point where some parts of government aren't needed anymore, we take that part out, or better, the initial laws enforced to make a change should already include the abolishion of that force as soon as the change has been achieved. You don't have to force big corporations to pay taxes, you can achieve the same goal by lowering taxes for small businesses or finding an average of taxes somewhere in the middle. You only have to make sure competition is equal for all businesses, whether big or small. If an American producer with a factory in the US has to pay a given amount of taxes, while an American corporation that has moved production to China and their official address to the Cayman Islands doesn't have to pay those taxes, either you charge those taxes upon import of the goods into the US in form of import duty, or you abolish those taxes for American producers. Once that's equal, producers will discover, the cost of shipping all that stuff over 15,000 miles is higher than the saved cost of American labor and well paid manufacturing jobs will return to the US.

Not sure what test you did, but in the test I did, the questions had 4 options to answer. strongly agree / agree / disagree / strongly disagree Not sure what kind of question combined with what kind of opinion could not find a fitting answer there. On some questions I myself was looking for a 5th option like "don't agree nor disagree, indifferent, I don't care, doesn't concern me". But then I realized not having an opinion about something only means a lack of information, so rather than criticising the question, I went for looking up some information about the topic before I answered the question.

Well @Torero, I'm no prophet and I don't have supernatural powers, therefore I can't give you an easy solution that would work under all circumstances. When someone comes up with a suggestion, I can tell you whether or not I believe that may work out and in this specific case of a gradual transition from authoritarian government to a free society I can bring you arguments of why I believe it won't work, which is mostly the economic point of exponential growing savings that cannot be sustained over several more generations. After all most people in here agree, the system is broken, we need something better. If you want to maintain the current broken system for several more generations, you will at least have to fix it to a point where exponential savings do not destroy the economy anymore. Since the current system is authoritarian and if you want to maintain it for decades to come, there's nothing wrong with applying authority, just changing the direction of the force. Instead of giving the biggest tax breaks to the richest corporations, instead of allowing them to hide their money in tax heavens and move production to China, while small and medium local businesses pay the highest tax rates, we could shut down tax heavens and cut taxes on small business instead. Instead of enforcing ever more laws and regulations on businesses that only the largest corporations can comply with, we could terminate laws and regulations and/or make exceptions for small businesses. From an authoritarian point of view it might make sense to enforce a minimum wage on huge corporations that use their power to suppress wages, but for a small business, having just a handful of employees that's as destructive as can be. Since the exponentially growing amount of money taken out of circulation through savings will destroy the economy, while all money is exclusively loaned into existence which requires exponentially increasing amounts of debt and debtors, as long as you want to maintain the broken system you will have to cut a part of the savings from the top as well as a part of the debt from the bottom once in a while. You have to cancel out the tip of the iceberg every now and then and keep the amount of savings and the amount of debt below a level where the exponential growth can be sustained for a while and you have to repeat that every time the exponential curve becomes too steep again.

Not really. Just printing money doesn't get that money into circulation, right after printing the money lays around in the FED, but it doesn't "exist" in the economy. Into existence it comes only after someone loaned it into existence. Currently that's the state, loaning vast amounts of money into existence, pumping up the national debt and pushing it into the circulation through welfare and other things. Therefore any inflationary consequence of printing money can happen only after someone loaned it into existence and if you want to reduce the welfare spending of the state (which is a pretty good idea) you have to name someone else who shall take on the amount of debt not taken on by the state anymore. On the inflation itself ..... which part of "there is no inflation to speak of, there hasn't been in over 20 years and there will not be, look at Japan, printing money like crazy for 25 years and getting deflation and depression out of it" did you not understand? As long as you have to triple the debt (no matter whether national debt or private debt or business debt) for every 50% devaluation of the currency, the net debt in relation to value increases exponentially and that's doomed to collapse.

What you're overlooking is still the required amount of debt and the question of who shall take on that debt. Printing money by itself doesn't cause inflation, only the act of handing out that money into the general population and thereby increasing the buying capacity of the people does. As long as almost all money loaned into existence ends up in the gigantic bubbles they are currently inflating in the stock market and real estate, there is no inflation. Your idea of devalued debt and devalued savings fails at the reality of no inflation happening. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ Scroll down, the inflation rate in the US in 2015 was almost ZERO and hasn't been anywhere near a rate that would effectively devalue anything since 1981. Sure, the USD as well as most other currencies in the world have devalued about 50% over the last 20 years, but at the same time national debt has more than tripled from $5.4 trillion in 1996 to over 18 trillion in 2015 or from 64% of GDB to 100% of GDP. The major flaw in mainstream economics is the idea that just printing money would cause inflation. It just isn't true, look at Japan http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/government-debt-to-gdp National debt was 230% of GDP in 2014, they have printed money like mad in the last 25 years, still there was no inflation to speak of http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/inflation-cpi Inflation in Japan has been very close to ZERO continuously since 1988. Inflation can be generated only through letting the income of the general population increase faster than productivity increases, so they have more puchasing power, meaning they generate an increased demand. Since productivity raises by roughly 3% per year, inflation will be the total increase in income of the general population in percent of their current income, minus 3. Zero inflation simply means, the total income of the population has increased precisely 3%. Fairly obvious, from a demand point of view it makes no difference, whether wages increase (as long as that doesn't destroy jobs) or jobs are created (as long as that doesn't decrease wages), or taxes are lowered, or social services are increased, in all these cases demand for goods and services increases. From an economic point of view that's a different story and from a libertarian point of view that might again be different, but no matter from which point of view you see it, all it does is, it slightly increases demand, it does NOT say who shall take on the debt. Private households will keep on saving, for pensions, for their children, etc., if you increase their income, i.e. through tax cuts, first of all they will pay off the debt they have accumulated in the last 30 years or so, then they will save some more and only as 3rd thing they will increase demand, so from there you get LESS debtors. Businesses already don't need much loans under current tax rates, the large corporations have so much spare money, they buy their own shares back and still have money to buy one another, they will not take on new debt, at least not much, even if they would start to invest more. If you cut business taxes, you may create some investments, some job creation, but you will not only not find any new debtors, you will have LESS debtors among businesses as well. So unless you want the state to keep on tripling the national debt every 20 years or so, you will get deflation due to the simple fact, the economy cannot loan enough money into existence, to compensate for money taken out of circulation through savings, upon increasing amounts of goods and services on sale.

Yes Worlok, no argument there. My point is, if we (as some others in here suggest) wait and take several generations of time for a gradual transition into a free society, the current corrupt system will collapse uncontrolled, which will have unexpected consequences that might entirely disable the transition into a free society for centuries. So rather than doing nothing, for the reason that doing something is by definition a violent force and shouldn't be done, I'd prefer doing something that makes sure we won't lose our goal out of sight. I fully agree the "something" we have to do should be the least amount of violence possible, still I believe if we don't do anything at all, the forces currently in place will lead us into a chaos in which nobody can live in peace anymore.

As much as I agree to the rest of your post, there you have a flaw in your point. As I pointed out above "there is no inflation to speak of", all states in the western world struggle with their national debt, because there isn't enough inflation to negate the national debt. Throughout the European Union, almost all countries now experience deflation, only Germany has a slight inflation of 0.2% or so, but FAR away from an inflation rate that would solve the debt problem. The US have a slightly higher inflation rate, still WAY below of what would be needed to solve the debt problem. That's because all the money given out into circulation still cannot keep up with the money taken out of circulation through savings. And even if it could keep up, that wouldn't solve anything, because within another 2 years or so the exponential curve of increasing savings would again exceed any possible free money giveaways. And even if you could print that much money, since all money exclusively is loaned into existence, how could you find debtors for all that printed money?

Yes shirgall, that's what will happen if we just keep going like we did the last 50 years or so. I actually believe, it will go one step further, not like the almost quiet dissolution of the Soviet Union, but more like the October Revolution in 1917. If nobody does anything to address the problem of exponentially growing savings, find a working solution and go for it, I believe the most likely cause of the final stage of the collapse will be in the European Union, where one state after the other will pull out of the Union, until the remaining states cannot keep the Euro as currency at float. The collapse of the Euro will cause the bankruptcy of several Euopean states, which will cause the bankruptcy of loads of big banks worldwide, which will ultimately cause all other fiat currencies to collapse, which will lead to the complete collapse of the entire global economy. Once that happens, all trade will come to a grinding halt, causing wide spread lack of food and energy, which will cause civil unrest, which (since bankrupt governments will have no more power to do anything about it) will overthrow all political systems near worldwide, just like in Russia 1917. The big problem I see in that is not only the months directly after the collapse, where plain hunger will cause chaotic situations even in the western world, I believe such an uncontrolled collapse might lead to similar results as they got in Russia, where a struggle between different ideas ended up in communism and THAT I don't want to happen. That's why I would highly prefer a controlled collapse, some kind of organized abolishion of the states, with a preset goal to get to a free society and a realistic plan of how it can be achieved. But then, as mentioned above, as long as almost nobody is willing to even talk about the problem, if almost everybody waits to see what will happen by itself, we will unavoidably hit the fan one day.

I would add another point: Even IFFFF we would assume that humans could have an influence on the climate, aren't humans part of natural evolution and wouldn't therefore the effect of humanity be part of natural changes? Since the only proposed solution from the alarm side comes close to shutting down civilization and moving humanity back into the caves, I would be strongly against doing anything like that, even IFFFF it could make a difference. The only constant in this world is change and adjusting to change is one of the biggest natural talents of biological life.

@Matthew M., that's quite true, I would fully agree to most of your post, but if you had red the other topic, where the reason for this topic came from, you would have seen, this was ment to argue, why we don't have the time to wait several generations for a gradual transition from our current system to a free society as proposed by those who critizised my demand for instant drastic action in several other topics we had in the last few weeks. If I got the sense of your post right, the need to do something about all the points you mentioned here in fact support my demand for quick action rather than wait a few more generations?

Not having the opportunity for a "big" cheat, doesn't make a poor guy less liable to cheat.