half-assed noob blabbermouth
LRC’s dunce david kramer needs an editor. badly. this would drop his LRC blog output by ~95%.
in his first post today he asserts that there are not three ways a state raises money, but two. this is because “borrowing” must always be paid back with stolen wealth.
good point in isolation, but what of his sticking with counterfeiting and theft as the two remaining ways? absurd. there is only one method of the state enriching itself, and it is theft. this includes “borrowing”, “taxation”, and counterfeiting (printing “money” others are forced — as in force — to use).
update 20100901:
what a fucking undeservedly arrogant bootlick child. he now writes,
UPDATE: Many people have written to me to point out that by printing more counterfeit money (therefore lowering the value of the money already in circulation—i.e., inflation), counterfeiting is also a form of theft. (Another expression that has been around for years is that inflation is a “hidden” tax.) Up until a month ago, I would have agreed with all of these people. But as Austrian economists Hans Hoppe and Walter Block pointed out in a paper they wrote back in 2002, you own your physical property but NOT the value of it. The value is what other people think it is worth at a certain particular moment. Therefore, although printing more “Federal” Reserve notes is obviously lowering the value of your dollars, they are not “stealing” its value (i.e., it is not theft). When the government taxes you, it is forcibly taking physical dollars from you—therefore, that would be considered stealing your physical property (i.e., theft).
“legal” tender, ya fucking child, learning in public at the world’s most prominent liberty-oriented site. you are forced to accept this rotten counterfeit shit. fuck papers by H-cubed and block which don’t discuss “legal” tender; go no further than this blog:
forgot to address overtly that another thrust made by anti-FRBers is debasement of the currency via credit expansion. that’s the main reason i mention fedgoon illegal legal tender[…] above. absent contract, no one has a right to non-debasement of a voluntary currency through credit expansion. tough shit. convert to one that isn’t being so debased. invent a digital currency impervious to expansion. do something peaceful. perhaps soon a radically cheap method of gold production will be discovered or invented, through which gold religionists may embrace the true and extra-statist swath of currency debasement. state fixation regarding currency ultimately leads to advocating mind control, for value is and must always be subjective. state fixation is the first hurdle of the anti-FRBer.
what retard boy’s alleging is that someone counterfeiting currency he’s coercing you to accept isn’t aggression. the balls of the snot-nosed douche. WTF has the LRC/LvMI world been bitching about for decades? they can throw it all out the door now, for genius noob kramerica’s on the case, bringing enlightenment to the darker regions of the earth with his fallacy-of-accident mutation of newer LRC/LvMI deities.
but what prevents liberty fiends from immediately converting fiat currency to the currency of their choice, thus protecting its value from constant debasement?
sadly, this isn’t easy. it’s expensive, inconvenient, privacy-raping, and is then subject to “taxation” again on the value you didn’t let get raped by fiat. one who’d transacted in a currency other than fiat would know this and hesitate before leaping into a pool of idiocy.
but david kramer is an asshole from birth. recently lew rockwell spoke on a radio show about being born with a hunger for liberty, and a corresponding understanding of statism’s bullshit. kramerica didn’t have that, and i allege he’s merely posing now, as many disintegrated types often do while crossing lines for the reception the other side offers.
no reception here, dickboy. you’re a posturing flake with a self-admitted longstanding socialist bent, and you don’t have the integrity to weigh your words even when publishing them at LRC. you tool.
when you’re required by “law” to accept shit currency and pay penalties for avoiding the shittiness of it, you’re being robbed. with the disincentive toward regular conversion from fiat dollars, that leaves the state open to print and profit from counterfeit, as it’s the creator of counterfeit who profits the most, then the next users and so on, until the debasement filters through and victimizes those not constantly churning and converting. this doesn’t even discuss how these fucks pretend we’re in a “legal” contractual relationship called the constitution, one violated increasingly since the ink was wet.
know who would use the continually debased goonited states fiat currency without threat of force? answer that and you’ll have your refutation of david kramer’s lightweight shit. you do not have a right to the retention of value for objects transacted voluntarily, but you sure as fuck have a right to not have constantly-value-losing objects forced upon you in exchange for created or existing wealth. being forced to accept currency debased by the second is, with every second that passes upon receipt of the paper, theft. and there is more beyond, for the aggression is not only against those smart enough to evade it were evasion not discouraged to the point of prohibition.
BTW, walter block argued long ago (.PDF) that counterfeiting counterfeit money is not only acceptable, but “heroic”. bypassing the H-word, i agree it’s beyond merely acceptable, clearly in the land of that which should be encouraged. would be fun watching blockhead kramer bounce his noob head up against block’s prior material on the subject.
update 20100901
he’s feeling the pressure. this is a good one. time for dickboy to change the subject. but there’s a catch! from the top:
There Are Only TWO Ways a Government Ultimately Raises Money
Posted by David Kramer on August 31, 2010 11:09 AM
Over the years, I’ve noticed a very common misconception about how a government raises money. Interestingly, this misconception has been stated by Austrian economists as well as all the other “economists” in the world.
The misconception is that government raises money three ways: taxation, printing, and/or borrowing. But in truth, borrowing is just a detour from the only two ways that a government actually raises money: taxation and/or printing. Unless the government is going to default on its borrowed funds, it still needs to pay them back by taxation and/or printing—like it pays for everything else. (Unless, of course, it borrows more money to pay back the original borrowed funds!! But even then, unless it is going to completely default on any of its borrowed funds, the only way government raises money is through taxation and/or printing.)
As far as I’m concerned, for anyone—Austrian economists, or otherwise—to keep repeating the “three ways a government raises money” misconception obfuscates the real issue: that government can only raise money by theft and/or counterfeiting (i.e., fraud).
UPDATE: Many people have written to me to point out that by printing more counterfeit money (therefore lowering the value of the money already in circulation—i.e., inflation), counterfeiting is also a form of theft. (Another expression that has been around for years is that inflation is a “hidden” tax.) Up until a month ago, I would have agreed with all of these people. But as Austrian economists Hans Hoppe and Walter Block pointed out in a paper they wrote back in 2002, you own your physical property but NOT the value of it. The value is what other people think it is worth at a certain particular moment. Therefore, although printing more “Federal” Reserve notes is obviously lowering the value of your dollars, they are not “stealing” its value (i.e., it is not theft). When the government taxes you, it is forcibly taking physical dollars from you—therefore, that would be considered stealing your physical property (i.e., theft). By the way, I’m not implying that what the government is doing is “okay” because they are not “stealing” your value. Counterfeiting is still fraud. The reason why people don’t realize the true value of this paper commodity is because the government has a monopoly on the printing of it. I’ve always maintained that if everyone started printing up these counterfeit “Fed” Notes tomorrow, they might soon realize (because of the ensuing rampant inflation) what a medium of exchange really is supposed to be (something that has a market value outside of its being used as a medium of exchange—that’s why it is initially accepted as a legitimate medium of exchange) and how they were being screwed by the government and the banksters who have controlled the “Federal” Reserve for the last 90 years.
People have also been writing to me to say that government “owns” property that it can sell. Oh really? Where did it get the money to purchase that property? Through taxation and/or printing? Did it just expropriate that property or piece of land? “Government”—like a corporation—is a group of people. Only people can own something, not some invisible entity. If I own shares in a company, I own part of that company’s assets. It may not be specified exactly which of its assets I own, but I can sell my share for cash. Which people in the government hold the shares in this “public” property? Do you and I, as taxpayers, really believe that we own part of GM—as Pres. Obama never tires of telling us? If so, I need to sell my share of GM because I’m a little pressed for cash at the moment. (Perhaps royal families actually do own vast amounts of their own countries due to homesteading centuries ago—though I wouldn’t be surprised if it was due more to aggressive wars.) The idea that Obama owns the Grand Canyon or Bloomberg owns the Brooklyn Bridge (actually, I sold the Brooklyn Bridge to some tourists back in 1977…and 1985…and 2003) is a fiction. There is no “public.” (More fiction from our ruling establishment over the centuries.) If you believe in some “public,” then you must believe in the validity of anti-discrimination laws because we are informed that businesses—unlike individuals in their private lives—can’t discriminate because they are dealing with the “public.” Here’s something else you can read by Austrian economist Hans Hoppe which explains what I’m talking about much better than I could ever hope to do.
yeah, get the fuck off that “non-aggressive fiat” tack. now it’s whether the state owns property. the fun part: in haste to provide backup for his diversion, he links to a huge piece by H-cubed that does later discuss fiat currency, refuting dickboy’s prior position that it isn’t aggressive. he does this using the lamest of lame tactics, pretending his prior dispute’s in H-cubed’s hands now. yeah, go read 400+ pages from triple-H to see what dickboy means — the blog equivalent of “my brother’s going to beat you up.”
hoppe:
[…] The question to be addressed in this paper is how is a fiat money possible? More specifically, can fiat money arise as the natural outcome of the interactions between self-interested individuals; or, is it possible to introduce it without violating either principles of justice or economic efficiency? […]
end of the chapter:
[…] Only a system of universal commodity money (gold), competitive banks, and 100-percent-reserve deposit banking with a strict functional separation of loan and deposit banking constitutes a just monetary system that can assure economic stability and present a genuine answer to the current monetarist fiasco. […]
he’s not quoted here as rebuttal to anyone but those who quote him for rebuttal in pussified semi argument-by-authority.
wow. just caught this new K-man edit: “Counterfeiting is still fraud.”
WTF? 
coincidence that after i email kramerica he adds to his mess post, “I’ve always maintained that if everyone started printing up these counterfeit ‘Fed’ Notes tomorrow, they might soon realize (because of the ensuing rampant inflation) what a medium of exchange really is supposed to be” […]?
what a confused, backpedaling quack.
November 17th, 2010 at 16:02
[...] note that the disgusting tail-wagging pussy, desperately in need of a personal blog so he’ll divert his litter from what used to be a superior site, again refers, as in triumph, to a document by his betters that does not discuss “legal tender”. this is the ink of the octopus, coward version. his bullshit assertion’s refuted earlier here. [...]