The Myth of Property Ownership: Woman Sees Her Home Confiscated Over a Water Bill
-
josda1000 wrote:
Yes it's a local cable access show
Is that a case of "Alex Jones - Eat your heart out" or serious "proper" journalism.
My tagline at the beginning of the show tells you that it's a libertarian opinion show. I find articles to talk about, and give the libertarian opinion on the subject. It is not a news show, it's about lies the media tells you, and mostly about the Federal Reserve, and I show diagrams to represent what I'm talking about as well. It's not an Alex Jones style either, because he seems to be more about entertaining and fearmongering. I am serious pretty much the whole show.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
Since the Fed was created, it has deprived the dollar of ~95% of its value through inflation
Not to laugh at this or anything, but are you aware there was inflation and deflation long before the fed? That the instability in currency caused major economic and social issues? Or that the Fed has done a fair job of managing consistency compared to the 'invisible reach around of the market'?
Distind wrote:
are you aware there was inflation and deflation long before the fed?
Yes. I hope you've been reading the debates with Ian and Christian. And as a matter of fact, between 1789 and 1913, the dollar gained 13% in value, just because it was gold/silver, compared to the other currencies of the world. Yes, there is some inflation when using gold. But it's so minuscule that it gains value compared to paper.
Distind wrote:
That the instability in currency caused major economic and social issues?
This is mostly a joke, but when talking about bank runs, this is only because of the fractional reserve idea.
Distind wrote:
Or that the Fed has done a fair job of managing consistency compared to the 'invisible reach around of the market'?
Yeah. And it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral. But this is a matter of perception.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
It's rather sad, you and people like you are standing on your soapbox over this issue. I don't see one offering to help pay the debt that cost her the house. But I do find it rather amusing that this privatization of what would otherwise be a government concern is being used to rail against 'big government' and some how supposedly supporting a fascist state. If anything this just goes to show the assholes who have money don't really give a shit about how they get it, they just want a return on investment.
Distind wrote:
If anything this just goes to show the assholes who have money don't really give a sh*t about how they get it, they just want a return on investment.
Sadly this is an example of greed trumping morality. Its common across the country for people to be able to pay the back taxes on a property then if the bank(or person) who paid them doesn't get paid by the bank gets the property clear and free before the bank. So properties can be bought quite easily this way. I won't do this, but others have. Some people find that if it's legal, when it comes to making money, it's morally okay. This is a common inconsistency along with the notion that if it isn't me everything is okay.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
josda1000 wrote:
I wouldn't know the legal process, but I do know that it is wholly unconstitutional.
classic stuff
-
There's a difference between legality, legal processes and lawfulness. I suggest you look into it.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
True. It binds legislation processes with common law. But all I'm saying is that it is, along with common law, the supreme law of the land. Legal processes can change from state to state, and I wish to not bog down in such mundane issues unless completely necessary. Common law doesn't change at all from state to state, but legal processes can.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Distind wrote:
are you aware there was inflation and deflation long before the fed?
Yes. I hope you've been reading the debates with Ian and Christian. And as a matter of fact, between 1789 and 1913, the dollar gained 13% in value, just because it was gold/silver, compared to the other currencies of the world. Yes, there is some inflation when using gold. But it's so minuscule that it gains value compared to paper.
Distind wrote:
That the instability in currency caused major economic and social issues?
This is mostly a joke, but when talking about bank runs, this is only because of the fractional reserve idea.
Distind wrote:
Or that the Fed has done a fair job of managing consistency compared to the 'invisible reach around of the market'?
Yeah. And it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral. But this is a matter of perception.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
reach around of the market
josda1000 wrote:
it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral
Man you're on a roll today! Fat Boy will the joke if no one else does
-
True. It binds legislation processes with common law. But all I'm saying is that it is, along with common law, the supreme law of the land. Legal processes can change from state to state, and I wish to not bog down in such mundane issues unless completely necessary. Common law doesn't change at all from state to state, but legal processes can.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
True. It binds legislation processes with common law. But all I'm saying is that it is, along with common law, the supreme law of the land. Legal processes can change from state to state, and I wish to not bog down in such mundane issues unless completely necessary. Common law doesn't change at all from state to state, but legal processes can.
And my only point was that comments like 'I wouldn't know the legal process, but I do know that it is wholly unconstitutional.' you do yourself a disservice.
-
josda1000 wrote:
True. It binds legislation processes with common law. But all I'm saying is that it is, along with common law, the supreme law of the land. Legal processes can change from state to state, and I wish to not bog down in such mundane issues unless completely necessary. Common law doesn't change at all from state to state, but legal processes can.
And my only point was that comments like 'I wouldn't know the legal process, but I do know that it is wholly unconstitutional.' you do yourself a disservice.
-
I think it's a matter of wording. I understand that the Constitution is a legal document, but it's not a legal process. That's what I'm trying to get across.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I know huh? You always say that kind of thing, and don't really ever have much to offer.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
don't really ever have much to offer.
On the topics of conspiracy theories related to, central banks, centralised government control, one world government, government media gag orders etc no I have very little to offer other than the occasional attempt at mocking.
-
Distind wrote:
are you aware there was inflation and deflation long before the fed?
Yes. I hope you've been reading the debates with Ian and Christian. And as a matter of fact, between 1789 and 1913, the dollar gained 13% in value, just because it was gold/silver, compared to the other currencies of the world. Yes, there is some inflation when using gold. But it's so minuscule that it gains value compared to paper.
Distind wrote:
That the instability in currency caused major economic and social issues?
This is mostly a joke, but when talking about bank runs, this is only because of the fractional reserve idea.
Distind wrote:
Or that the Fed has done a fair job of managing consistency compared to the 'invisible reach around of the market'?
Yeah. And it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral. But this is a matter of perception.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
This is mostly a joke, but when talking about bank runs, this is only because of the fractional reserve idea.
Not talking bank runs, I'm talking the people who don't make that much money but still have to eat and most likely have loans. They lose either way. Inflation, they get stuck paying more for food and probably didn't make any more. Deflation they get stuffed with loans which are now valued far higher than they were and they were probably making far less. I'm talking about the people who actually suffered from these changes regularly, not the people who had money in the bank to withdraw.
josda1000 wrote:
Yeah. And it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral. But this is a matter of perception.
Because as per usual, it's illegal and immoral if one person gets inconvenienced by a regulation, but perfectly moral to let people suffer due to a lack of it. Ran into this argument a lot against public health care too, doesn't make it work.
-
josda1000 wrote:
This is mostly a joke, but when talking about bank runs, this is only because of the fractional reserve idea.
Not talking bank runs, I'm talking the people who don't make that much money but still have to eat and most likely have loans. They lose either way. Inflation, they get stuck paying more for food and probably didn't make any more. Deflation they get stuffed with loans which are now valued far higher than they were and they were probably making far less. I'm talking about the people who actually suffered from these changes regularly, not the people who had money in the bank to withdraw.
josda1000 wrote:
Yeah. And it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral. But this is a matter of perception.
Because as per usual, it's illegal and immoral if one person gets inconvenienced by a regulation, but perfectly moral to let people suffer due to a lack of it. Ran into this argument a lot against public health care too, doesn't make it work.
Distind wrote:
Because as per usual, it's illegal and immoral if one person gets inconvenienced by a regulation, but perfectly moral to let people suffer due to a lack of it. Ran into this argument a lot against public health care too, doesn't make it work.
I agree with hearing this too. By and far the people who have are the ones saying this the most. It reminds me of the land in Gulliver's Travels when he's small and puny and explains to the queen how their economics functions. She finds this to be impish and small just like Gulliver.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
josda1000 wrote:
This is mostly a joke, but when talking about bank runs, this is only because of the fractional reserve idea.
Not talking bank runs, I'm talking the people who don't make that much money but still have to eat and most likely have loans. They lose either way. Inflation, they get stuck paying more for food and probably didn't make any more. Deflation they get stuffed with loans which are now valued far higher than they were and they were probably making far less. I'm talking about the people who actually suffered from these changes regularly, not the people who had money in the bank to withdraw.
josda1000 wrote:
Yeah. And it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral. But this is a matter of perception.
Because as per usual, it's illegal and immoral if one person gets inconvenienced by a regulation, but perfectly moral to let people suffer due to a lack of it. Ran into this argument a lot against public health care too, doesn't make it work.
Distind wrote:
Because as per usual, it's illegal and immoral if one person gets inconvenienced by a regulation, but perfectly moral to let people suffer due to a lack of it.
I think you've got it backwards. With more regulations, all small businesses are somewhat inconvenienced in order to fit in line with them. The corporations have plenty of capital to fit in line with them, or to pay regulators off to not speak up about their cronyism. With fewer regulations, businesses are able to compete to get the best product to their consumers, and the consumer base is able to handle the situation fine. Small businesses are able to climb the ladder of success according to their merits, as opposed to fitting in line with what a government decides is good for you. Don't get me wrong, a government should always be there to protect from fraud and abuse. But that's about it. If you have the ability, see Stossel's last show. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SXKCzhz_q8[^] The reason why America became great is because of its freedom. The reason why we're good here is because of our economic freedom, at the very least. Our standard of living is high compared to so many other countries, and not because of our democracy or regulations; it's because of the market.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
This is mostly a joke, but when talking about bank runs, this is only because of the fractional reserve idea.
Not talking bank runs, I'm talking the people who don't make that much money but still have to eat and most likely have loans. They lose either way. Inflation, they get stuck paying more for food and probably didn't make any more. Deflation they get stuffed with loans which are now valued far higher than they were and they were probably making far less. I'm talking about the people who actually suffered from these changes regularly, not the people who had money in the bank to withdraw.
josda1000 wrote:
Yeah. And it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral. But this is a matter of perception.
Because as per usual, it's illegal and immoral if one person gets inconvenienced by a regulation, but perfectly moral to let people suffer due to a lack of it. Ran into this argument a lot against public health care too, doesn't make it work.
I think we can both agree that corporations are the problem. But the only way they get away with things is through buying government votes. This is a symptom (THE symptom) of big government. The only way to change things is to not go after corporations with more legislation (because that will add to the burden of small business), but to actually shrink government. I know it goes against everything you've ever been taught, but this is the only way to do it. Notice that as government grows, life gets just a little bit more difficult here at home. This is because the corporations are growing, and because money is taken out of the private sector and handed to others in the private sector. The only way to fix it is to reverse the trend. The middle class is shrinking. Why? Because of the corporations? Yes, partly. But it's also because big government is an enabler.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
don't really ever have much to offer.
On the topics of conspiracy theories related to, central banks, centralised government control, one world government, government media gag orders etc no I have very little to offer other than the occasional attempt at mocking.
I bet you have lots to offer on the topic of cricket and sheep.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
I bet you have lots to offer on the topic of cricket and sheep.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
new interst in sheep css? have you changed your sexual leaning from mrs thumb and her daughters to wooly beasts?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
http://www.alternet.org/story/147118/woman_loses_home_over_a_%24362_water_bill_--_the_sneaky_way_investors_exploit_poor_homeowners[^] This is in response to Christian. At one point, he and I were discussing (I can't find the thread) about property rights, and how banks cannot lawfully or legally claim another piece of property (land, car, etc), at all, whatsoever, unless a loan has been lended to the party, in which it has not been paid back. In concept, we both agree here. HOWEVER, in the situation posted in the link, a lady did not pay a water bill to the government in the amount of 362 dollars (the property was bought and paid for in full by this time, they'd owned it for 30+ years). The government decided to, instead of collecting the amount owed, hand over the piece of land to banks and investors. This is theft, outright. I believe we may all agree on the concept here, but I would like people to sound off. Secondly, this goes along with two of Jefferson's quotes: "My reading of history convinces me that bad government comes from too much government." "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." As to the second quote, let's be clear here: There's no way, in our new "socialist/fascist" society, that we'd be homeless. If that were true, then there'd be no incentive for anyone to work for the corporations, IMO, and it'd be impolitic to do so. But the overriding principle of that quote is clear: inflation and deflation, what is now called the business cycle, is created to deprive wealth from the middle class. We once had a thriving middle class, as opposed to very popular belief to the pundits of this forum. Since the Fed was created, it has deprived the dollar of ~95% of its value through inflation, and creating busts through deflation, therefore having us work extra jobs that back in the 1800s the middle class didn't need. You'd also need to prove to me pretty clearly that the middle class was not
josda1000 wrote:
HOWEVER, in the situation posted in the link, a lady did not pay a water bill to the government in the amount of 362 dollars (the property was bought and paid for in full by this time, they'd owned it for 30+ years). The government decided to, instead of collecting the amount owed, hand over the piece of land to banks and investors. This is theft, outright. I believe we may all agree on the concept here, but I would like people to sound off.
I'd love to read several accounts to get detail on this, I find it hard to believe that she was a week late and came home to find it was not home anymore. More like they did this because they exhausted all other avenues, and I'd expect that some history would also exist. This sort of thing just does not happen to normal people who pay their bills.
josda1000 wrote:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
I assume this is something he really said ? I don't have reason to doubt it, but I know that the Lenin effect causes people to invent quotes to give their words weight. Either way, I'm sorry to say that the odd person who lost their home in circumstances we can't claim to fully know, does not prove that there's anything like an epidemic, or any reason for me to fear losing my home more than, say, being killed in a school shooting ( in America at least ). Not trying to start the gun discussion, just trying to think of an example of something that happens in America, yet will not affect the vast majority of people. It's a long way from what the quote is saying. And the banks STILL have nothing to do with it. The banks had nothing to do with this woman not paying her water bill, or losing her home.
josda1000 wrote:
As to the second quote, let's be clear here: There's no way, in our new "socialist/fascist" society, that we'd be homeless. If that were true, then there'd be no incentive for anyone to work for the corporations, IMO, and it'd be impolitic to do so.
This is, again, not based on any real facts in the real world.
josda1000 wrote:
But t