Arugmentation (Was: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.)

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Wed Apr 3 01:44:06 UTC 2002


On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, J.A. Henshaw wrote:
> You labor under the belief that Roosevelt did not exercise the War
> Powers Act and change the rules.

And you labor under the belief that the War Powers Act is in effect when
there is no official declaration of war.

> Of course,  you see everything through tthe lenses of your 
> "no private property' glasses and like things better the way 
> they are,  and obviously have not researched what I'm 
> telling people - that the US declared bankruptcy in 1933.

OK, I don't want to get personal here, but your willful ignorance is
showing.

I have stated repeatedly (REPEATEDLY!) that I do not believe in the
abolition of all private property yet you still attribute that belief to
me.

> >>Why, oh why, can I not prove things to people that are objective?  
> >>What will you say if you had a 1964 dollar bill in your hand?
> > 
> > I'd say it's a miracle because they don't exist.
> > 
> > Are you sure you're not thinking about the 1964 Kennedy half-dollar coins?

Can you show us even a picture of one of these mythical dollar bills?  Or
are they all in a vault held by the Bavarian Illuminati?

> 1913 was the year of the Act,  I believe.

1913 was, in fact, the year of the Federal Reserve Act.

> > I think you're confused here.  Around 95% of the money in the economy is
> > in currency speculation rather than the REAL economy of goods and services
> > (exactly the inverse of the ratio of same thirty years ago).  Is that the
> > "CREDITS on a COMPUTER" that you're talking about?
> 
> 
> If you are equating currency speculation with credit, then we are in
> agreement.

I'm not.  Currency speculation is a particular industry, like a kind of
international investment banking, that involve the circular exchange of
currencies to increase wealth.  It does, in essence, exist only on paper
(or in computers or however you want to think of it) because none of the
wealth was ever exchanged for real goods or services.

> Either way, the point about stability remains, and I'm not sure why
> you go to such great lengths to call me "confused".... you like that
> word a lot don't ya.

Well, "confused" is easier to type and use in a sentence than "selectively
gullible and the kind of person that only hears or remembers what he wants
to hear or remember".

> > Um, you can write an IOU for a debt, but that IOU is a new debt owed by
> > you (that's what IOU means).
> 
> Gee, thanks for defining IOU for me Jeme... lol.

Yeah, so you see why exchanging an IOU for your debt at the bank nets you
nothing.  You still owe exactly what you owed before.  And since an IOU is
a contract, the acceptance of that IOU is subect to the terms of the
recipient... so that IOU would be subject to whatever interest the bank
requires for carrying the IOU.

> > When you pay with your FRNs, you are transfering the debt from yourself to
> > an arm of the United States Treasury Department.  The Treasury is now
> > responsible for the debt (mediated through the Federal Reserve) and you're
> > off the hook.
> > 
> > I'll be the first to admit that there's a problem with monetary policy
> > worldwide as led by the United States.  And I recognize who the Federal
> > Reserve system benefits the most and who it hurts.
> > 
> > But the rights you think you've lost due to the changes in U.S. currency
> > never existed.  They were the wet dream of the Federalists and perhaps
> > popped up in little pockets of place and time, but they are contrary to
> > the objectives of a free and democratic people.
> 
> I don't "think" we've lost anything,  I know so.

OK, before I address what you wrote here, I'll just point out that you
totally skipped the important distinction between the debt associated with
reserve notes and the debt associated with a personally issued IOU.

> I don't care much for your wet dream of democracy however, and am not
> at all interested in your "objective", as I have made quite clear.  

You're not interested in the objectives of the Enlightenment?  Pray tell,
what philosophy governs you if not the betterment of mankind through
freedom, peace, and justice?

> You tell me that in your wet dream I cannot own a pair of shoes
> outright.

I'm dying to hear where I told you that I had such a dream.

I do recall explaining to you how private property is not required for
freedom, but I don't recall ever saying that it was my belief that private
property should be abolished.  In fact, I recall repeated statements to
the contrary.

> I imagine that you don't own yourself, in your wet dream of democracy,
> either.

That's a fantastic imagination you've got there, Jeff.

Do you recall my proposal for a replacement to the 14th Amendment that
included absolute uninfringable freedom over one's person for all
voluntary medical and cosmetic procedures?  I do recall writing that.  I'm
wondering how that can be interpreted as a belief that one does not have
ownership-like rights over themselves.

(I will stop short of saying that a person "owns themself" mostly for
semantic reasons.  Ownership requires two entities: the owner and the
owned.  I am myself and that is a single entity.  One cannot own the other
because they are the same.)

So what do you mean by the above, given what I've previously stated on the
subject?

> That's a bit too juxtaposed against nature to ever be a reality.

I'm not surprised, seeing as how it sprang, fully-formed, from your
imagination.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list