Thursday, January 12, 2012

The Countless Fallacies of Ingo

To follow along:

Standard Font = My points regarding views of Ingo
Italics = Ingo's reply to these
Bold = my comments in reply

Well, what do you know? Something concrete... . Congratulations !!!

Something concrete???? Ingo, you and I have exchanged countless thousands of words on many of these subjects. Is this only now dawning on you?

1) No private property in land; all land is state / government owned.

CORRECT: there is NO private property in Land. It does not exist. (Read John Locke for the argument) People have exclusive use of Land in perpetuity through "fee simple" titles issued by Country Registrars.

I don’t need to read John Locke to understand this kind of thinking offers the road to slavery.

WRONG: No state, no government owns Land. Land cannot be owned, it can only be used. States have allodial title over land, which simply gives them juridiction over landed areas where no other sovereign can impose any kind of tax. Allodial title also obligates the State to administer equal access to Land for residents in their jurisdictions. They use the counties as their subdivisions to meet the obligation.

Control, use disposition. Do you have a different definition of “ownership”? Inherently SOMEONE gets to decide these things. Either I control, use, and can dispose of the land under my home, or someone else can. There is no third choice.

2) Lincoln's vision of keeping the union together under all circumstances must be maintained, ignoring the cost this exacted the first time.

CORRECT: Lincoln's decision to fight the Civil War amounted to instituting the concept of the "Insolubility of the United States". In other words, once a state joins the Union, it is stuck. Lincoln changed "These United States" to "The United States".

Yes, and this was the end of any idea that the states were to be a check and balance against federal over-reach. No 17th amendment needed.

WRONG: I think the cost in lives the Civil War extracted was severe. The question is whether this great sacrifice in lives to fight the Civil War did not actually prevent a much greater loss of lives down the road. I will argue that it did.

The same (false) logic is used to defend the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, more important is this: a group of people decided that they no longer desired to be under a certain government, and instead chose to form a new one. The jilted government didn’t like this and decided to kill those who wanted to leave. How is this defensible?

3) The state is necessary for markets to function.

WRONG: There are only two "wealth distribution systems". One is the "free market" which distributes wealth by totally voluntary, uncoerced, private agreements. The other is "Socialism" which distributes wealth to one degree or another by government edict. I am against "Socialism", and I am full square for the "Free Market". The State is not necessary for markets to function.

Ingo, countless times you have stated you believe in the free market, followed by a list of state intrusions longer than my sleeve as “necessities” for the market to function properly.

4) Banking cannot properly function without state charter.

Wrong: Banks can function without state charter. However, States have an obligation to adhere to the U.S. Constitution. To validate a paper currency to be used as "legal tender" under the U.S. Constitution, the State issues bank charters requiring full redemption at any time of the paper currency issued by a chartered bank.

The State charter sets forth the bank's obligation in creating redeemable paper currency and the State's authority to check that the bank meets the obligation. Through State bank charters, the States insure adherence to Section 10, Article I of the Constitution.

Just because it is in (your interpretation of) the Constitution does not make it economically necessary. Contracts between individuals will suffice.

5) The original Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a good and necessary act, done openly and with good intent.

CORRECT: While the big NY banks and their ally, Majority Leader Alrich (R) in the U.S. Senate did everything to award the contemplated franchise of a national currency to the NY banks, the majority of the U.S. Senators insisted on a franchise issued to each of twelve independent, regional reserve banks to create redeemable currency under the "Real Bills Doctrine". (See FRA of 1913, paragraph (a) and (c), Section 14.) Only after Senator Aldrich saw that he would be unable to pass the FRA in favor of the NY banks did he start to support the ratification of the 16th Amendment. It was the Income Tax which allowed the NY FRB to violate the 1913 FRA starting in the 1920s and eventually destroy the original FED system. The FRA of 1913 sought to effect control over the use of "idle currency" for speculative purposes.

There is nothing ggood that can come from legislation that establishes such a concentrated money power. Whatever the original intent, there is no doubt what this creature would become, and many people understood this even in 1913.

6) Legal form triumphs economic reality; for example, credit (real bills) is not credit if the legislature says it isn't.

WRONG: Real Bills have nothing to do with legislation. Real Bills evolved over hundred of years and are governed by a separate section of Common Law known as the Law of Bills and Notes. Real Bills are not credit. Real Bills are an asset which are immediately negotiable and can be discounted. The deciding party in a Real Bill is the signer, not the drawer. Credit instruments, or loans are not discounted. These instruments earn interest. Lenders want interest, not discounts. Real Bills are discounted, loans are not.

You misinterpret the point entirely. Whether based on legislation or common law, neither changes the underlying economics – payment later for goods delivered today. This is credit. On this point, we have exchanged too many words.

7) Repeal of the 17th amendment is a key to restoring the republic to the original intent of the founders', ignoring the events of 1861 - 1865

CORRECT: The events (Civil War) of 1861 - 1865 have absolutely nothing to do with the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment changed the selection of U.S. Senators by state legislators to a popular election by state voters. This was something which the founders were utterly opposed to judging from their four week long debate of the very subject during the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Again, you misinterpret. I know Lincoln’s war had nothing to do with the 17th amendment. The point is the states lost their voice in 1865. The deaths of 700,000 carried a far stronger message to the states to toe the line than did a few words on paper passed 50 years later.

By ratifying the 17th Amendment, the states surrendered their power in the U.S. Congress. The present concentration of power in the federal government is the direct result of the ratification of the 17th Amendment.

No, the concentration of power in the federal government can be much more logically traced to Lincoln winning the war.

8) The states lost their voice with the passage of the 17th amendment, again ignoring that the voice was lost in 1865.

CORRECT: The states resigned their voice in the U.S. Congress with the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. The states did not lose their voice in the U.S. Congress in 1865. However, they did lose the freedom to seceed from the Union.

Without the ability to secede, the states lost their voice.

9) Capping property taxes in California through Proposition 13 was a bad idea

CORRECT: If land parcels are taxed on their actual value (Land value are County Assessor records) the use of those parcel must be put to their best and proper use. Capping this tax, or collecting a tax below value allows parcels to be used for speculative purposes. California is the only state which passed Proposition 13. It is the State which is in the greatest financial problems today. It is not widely reported, but California's real estate boom and bust has put the State into insolvency which is only staved off through federal funds, meaning the 49 other states pay for the survival of California.

Anything that limits the states ability to tax is a good thing. For one time, the citizens of a jurisdiction effectively set a limit, and this limit has stuck for over thirty years. That such successes could be achieved everywhere and for all forms of taxes.

10) Free markets = government legislation, government regulation, government charter, government audit, and government enforcement.

NONSENSE: See Item 3)

NONSENSE: See my response to item 3)


CORRECT: Real Bills are backed by the reputation of the signer and the ready demand for his goods by his customers. Banks create redeemable paper currency against Real Bills which they acquire by discounting them to the producer/seller. The State bank charters require that paper currency be readily redeemable into gold. Banks are required to hold certain amounts of gold as capital. If redemption requirements exceed gold on hand, a bank can always rediscount Real Bills for gold.

Mans’ dream, to create gold from nothing. It is called inflation.

12) If the courts decide something is Constitutional, it is Constitutional.

WRONG: Courts, including the Supreme Court, set precedence with their decisions. None of the court decisions have the power of a constitutional amendment. As a matter of fact, I propose a constitutional amendment to vacate all Supreme Court decision since 1937.

Fair enough. Now how about an amendment to destroy the idea of precedent.

13) 'The "State" came into existence to preserve the family.'

The "State" is a natural phenomenon which emerges form a group of people congregated in a certain area. "Government" is the legal body which enforces rules established by the group of people in a certain area to allow them to survive and to propagate. An "Administration" are the people who operate the government.

You do not address the statement, which is a direct quote of yours. However, there is certainly nothing natural about the “state.”

14) 'Would humans and families go extinct without the "State"? Yes, it is very likely that they would.'

CORRECT: It is better to say "Government", then to use the term "State". Without "Government" individual rights would be difficult to protect and the ability to secure families and other groups in their economic behavior would be threatened. There cannot be liberty without government, but government is also the greatest threat to liberty. The balance is found in a Republic under the Rule of Law.

I can live with the idea of government, as long as the association is voluntary and one is free to leave or secede. As you support Lincoln’s war, we obviously have different views on what constitutes a just government.

15) Congress established Social Security out of benevolence, in order to make up for the inability to save for retirement due to gold confiscation.

WRONG: Congress was "forced" to pass Social Security Legislation, because the nationalization of gold confiscated gold holdings from American savers in 1933. Without Gold, an individual cannot "save" to sustain himself in old age.

Who “forced” Congress to pass Social Security? Why did they feel “forced”? You believe it is because Congress felt somehow obliged because people could no longer save for retirement – you say it again here. Hence the term benevolence.

However it was passed as one more tool to gain constituency.

16) In 2012 Republican election, believes Newt Gingrich would be better than Ron Paul in re-establishing Constitutional limits on the Federal state.

CORRECT: Gingrich has a proven political record. He went up against the FED central banking system by passing balanced budgets He pushed through welfare reform against stiff opposition. Best of all, he brought about the power change in the U.S. House. He made no friends by doing this either with the Democrats, nor with the Republican Party Establishment. It didn't take those two long to oust Gingrich as the Speaker of the House.

On the other hand, Ron Paul is a politician who talks a lot about restraining the federal government, but in his decades as a member of the U.S. House he has shown an inability to built coalitions or to cut the power of the federal government in any way. As an educator and "Pied Piper" for the "cause", Ron Paul is commendable. As a politician, he is unremarkable.

Your belief here is so far outside reality I don’t know where to begin. So I won’t.

17) 'John Bolton would make an excellent Secretary of State.'

CORRECT: I see John Bolton as a logical, knowledgable individual who can express himself well on a wide range of foreign affairs. He would make an excellent Secretary of State under a President Gingrich.

We can agree that he would be a perfect Secretary of State for Gingrich. The result will be a continuation of the same horrendous foreign policy that we have lived for several decades.

18) "The greatest nightmare for the central bank crowd is a "President Newt Gingrich"."

CORRECT: See Item 16)

STUNNING: See my response to Item 16)

19) "The Republican establishment... is hell bent to prevent Newt Gingrich from changing the monetary system to return to "free market" capitalism."

CORRECT: The Democrats and the Republican Party Establishment see a "President Gingrich" as someone who would threaten their FED central banking system by promoting the establishment of a parallel redeemable currency. This would be to the of benefit of the average American, but it would be to the detriment of the monetary elite.

Newt Gingrich has never said a single word against the Fed, unless it was to parrot Ron Paul in this election campaign. To believe he would somehow be a challenge to the power of the Fed is dreamland cubed.

"Slop not fit for a pig, I would say."

This particular comment potrais you to have the brain of a mosquito, which I suspected long ago. You just proved it again.

We will each stand in judgment one day, Ingo. One of us for supporting force and coercion, the other for voluntary relationships. I will take my chances.

Hey, BM... ..I like to squish bugs... .. (Bionic Mosquito, what a joke... ..)

Ingo, I have been squished many times. Being bionic, they are able to put me back together again….

1 comment:

  1. The DB certainly exposed us to some strange perspectives. I for one needed them to see just how strange and varied they were, and just how strange mine had been. taxes