An idiot may not know what they're talking about through ignorance, a moron is someone it is impossible to teach. Which are you?
Their debt [the National debt] is an illusion. It is not real. Only our time and its value is real.
No MA'AM, YOU can not affix any monetary value to YOUR time and neither can I. The market for someone's time is a matter of their talents and supply and demand. There are hours systems, but maybe I want the equivalent for 10 hours of work for every hour of my time and I can get it because of a unique skill, while you cannot. It depends on what you have to sell. Understood?
The money we pay to the interest on their illusion, is the real and it comes from our time and value of it, which is real.
No MA'AM, the money THEY issue is real and was created, the interest was NOT created, therefore paying it back ALWAYS reduces the supply of money and all the rest is irrelevant.
Section Four of the 14th Amend points out very stealthily, this to be true (that debt is an illusion).
Let's bring up section 4 of the 14th Amendment and have a look at it:
Section 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Where it points out, that when the rebellion against our original state governments stops, all of the debt and promises/obligations become null and void.
Well, we may have an agreement here, except that
1) we do not know whether this amendment was actually ratified according to the provisions for ratifying such amendments and
2) if it was not, then there are whole categories of "public law" that would be abolished. We need an audit of the US Constitution! The 16th and 17th amendments are likewise suspect and we have a perfectly good ratified 13th amendment that we want back.
Now, we all know how stingy/cheap they (the banksters are) and would not let one red cent get away without being paid to them, if it was really owed to them. So, for them to say this about all debt/promises/obligations being off, once the original state governments are restored, should tell everyone how the debt is all an illusion. For if the debt was real, they would not put this in the contract (their 14th Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution (which is really just an international contract of commerce between all states in the Union and outside of the Union too). Their 'debt' is created from nothing and is nothing. Only the interest paid on their nothing, is real.
No MA'AM, and we're pretty much in agreement except that there is no way that anyone could be made to accept that a token of money is not real when it acts like money, purchases things and services, splitting barter, etc. like money and I'm frankly disgusted at the dishonestly of those who claim otherwise! The AMOUNT of said money THEY issue IS REAL. The interest THEY REQUIRE was never created in the first place therefore paying it back ALWAYS diminishes the supply. It's simple math.
We'll reiterate these incontestable facts:
1) Issuing money by fiat is THEIR red herring which allows THEIR dialectic of either THEIR credit or THEIR gold and silver to continue. ANYONE FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER that says that paper notes or swipe cards or checks are not real money is an asshole! Want to be one? Join the clowns!
2) The money created out of thin air is real, the interest was NEVER created and is therefore unreal, in fact paying all interest automatically diminishes the supply of money. But meanwhile no one mentions how money actually dies and therefore their misconceptions (lies their bankers told them) continue. Money therefore must be replenished. How is that done? THAT is the question this blog's proposal answers.
3) People have value, not time or things. Was my emphasis sufficient or do I have to yell it into your thick skull? Therefore you base a legitimate money system on people who issue all money, NOT based on things or time.
4) Basing money on a transaction at a given time rather than a commodity eliminates all speculators since the issue of how much money is available for price manipulation becomes prohibitively expensive where it is borrowed under the present system.
5) In a system which separates the loaning function of money from the transaction clearing function does away with all pretensions concerning deposit insurance because it is always understood exactly who owns all the money in the system, not some bank or some government but ONLY individual human beings.
I am not a fan of Riegel. I don't agree.
I'm not asking for your agreement. The truth is the truth whether you agree or not. Either people have value or they do not. If they have value then they should issue their own money, period! Anything else is an autocracy or worse.
Only property/land owners can make their own money system to be used only upon their land[s]. The states real land owners are the ones who pay the state legislatures to manage the state's affairs. They are also the ones that agree[d] to dealing with the central bankers and its central banking system aka the Federal Reserve Banks.
No MA'AM, This is landed autocracy or aristocracy and we are NOT going back there, period! In fact, your thinking ties money directly to a state, which we in this camp despise. We despise states so much that we would rather live apart from them as the Amish have attempted to do. Our mantra is “come out of her, my people.” We shall never contest the power of states to do evil as that's what landed aristocracies have done down through time. We recognize that ALL THEIR money leads to slavery. We will ultimately not be slaves to them anymore, because they shall fail and THEIR money with them, and BEFORE they do, we had best have something to come out of them into. What's to preserve your property rights? The barrel of a gun! I might agree that only land owners would have the vote, but not the rest of it, NEVER!
This is the main part that everyone seems to leave out on learning about money. Whatever deal the state's land owners made with the Fed Reserve Bank, God only knows what that real deal is where they (Fed Reserve Bank) gets its authority to issue monies and its values/stamps/seals to be used in all the States in their Union.
Ultimately, who cares? Irrelevant!
Shays Rebellion was also about them issuing their own commodities to be used upon their lands, during the depression after the Revolutionary War. Some refer to it as the whiskey rebellion, which it was nothing of the sort. If anything it was a self defense thingy going on against the Boston Merchant Elitists at that time. Which they eventually stole their land[s] from all the Shayites, thru might and legalities [sic]. Not lawfully done, either.
I agree with this too, and who was with Washington when he went up there to Western Massachusetts (not far from me) to break that up and ensure compliance? Alexander Hamilton, that's who! Tom DiLorenzo did a great job on him. But that affair actually demonstrates the true nature of the US Constitution. It wasn't and isn't that great a document, sorry. It was drawn up behind closed doors under armed guard away from earshot; literally a conspiracy. People are either so easily led or they have better things to do than worry about someone's clandestine plans to seize all the money and income and resources for themselves, so they have done nothing.
People today, do not own property, only the color of law titles, not the original land patent/title. The only thing, IMO that people do own and has value is time. As, most do now own their own property/land. Only land owners can produce make money.
You do not own time, that belongs to the Almighty. You could be dead tonight and you have NO power over it if it is your destiny. Statements like these are easy to see through and disprove. Even were I to agree about your statements concerning land ownership, just how then do you square that with present realities? We know that land ownership is temporal, and land owners are not always synonymous with this blog's narrower definition of wealth; if it does not produce an income, it aint wealth.
What I find morally disgraceful about your outlook is your devaluation of people. Such as you are often spoiled narcissistic little brats! I think you'd best get a better grip on reality and this blog's proposal before challenging it. I've driven huge holes in all your arguments. Try and patch them if you can.
Current Hypothetical Value of a Hypothetical Value Unit