Philosophy Discussion Forums

Frost wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 10:08 amWhile I enjoyed my month-long ban, I certainly missed out on a lot here.

After what you said to me last time you are extremely lucky I didn't pack you up permanently. I may be the first forum Admin in history to allow someone to abuse me like that and let them back in. You are now on permanent thin ice here.

If you abuse me (or other people again) the ban will be permanent, no delay, no warning, no questions asked, and I don't care what others say to you - not after after the abuse you laid on me. My definition of "abuse" as applying to you from now on will be my own with no argument or right of appeal. Best to be extra polite to be sure.

Thus, your patronising commentary about how Steve was apparently the only one here to still be engaging the topic is inappropriate and will not be tolerated. You have effectively been released from forum prison for bottom-feeding forum behaviour and thus you now have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to comment on the standard of others' posts. You have done worse than anyone here and forfeited your right to criticise.

I will be watching you like a hawk. Just one slip ... you can either be nice or you can be gone.

Alias wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 10:30 am Who produces the currency?

The central government. That is a matter of monetary policy, not economics. Money is a medium of exchange used in economic transactions.

Alias wrote:How are these "rights" established in the first place? Particularly property rights? Particularly the ownership and transfer of land, rights-of-way, water access, resource use and waste disposal?

For the most part, the way they are right now. The biggest change is in the far greater ability to control that property. Rights-of-way, easements, etc. are complex topics, so specific questions would be needed for specific answers.

Alias wrote:What would be the point of the government sitting on a pile of gold, if the government wasn't involved in economics?

They wouldn’t be.

Alias wrote:An elected body would have to pass such an amendment, curtailing half of its own powers and two thirds of its own functions; disbanding half or more of its agencies, and get it thorough the Supreme Court, and then hope the country survives the loss of those government functions.

It would be curtailing far more than half its powers and two thirds of its function Although technically, in the U.S. a state convention could be held in order to bypass Congress. In the U.S., the vast majority of what the central government does it has no authority to do so in the first place since it is not in the Constitution, and without economic involvement that would be far less. It would have to be a gradual process to permit adjustment.

Alias wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how many people keep hoping that a philosopher-king will fix everything the stupid populace messed up.

This is a matter of economics, not philosophy.

Of course. Simple.