Posted by: graemebird | October 25, 2007

More Scribblings On Libertarian-Principle-HEIRACHY.



Plus you REYNOLDS!!!!!! would never be caught pretending with your clients that you don’t need regulations. So this is just you being a dishonest bully-boy advocate of the racketeers.
Make sure you understand all this libertarians. Because it is this belief that regulations are not necessary that makes us libertarians look like dogmatic nutballs.
It must be emphasised that 99.99% of the current regulations are just the most offensive, horrid, dead weight loss, vomit-inducing, violations of natural justice imagineable.
But the fact is you need regulation. And it ought to be government regulation if its not regulation via an enforcement/dispute resolution agency.
Now in response to the Reynolds Crapola.
You are the one suggesting fraud banking.
What would you do when the banks closed their doors?
When do you wind that bank up?
After two business working days?
But thats only if we allowed fraud banking in the first place.
“Can the banks suspend specie payments.?
Do then THEIR debtors have to keep paying back to the banks?”
IF SO WHY SO? If the banks can suspend specie payments WHY SHOULD JOE PUBLIC HAVE TO KEEP PAYING THE BANKS??????
What are the regulations you propose under fraud banking and why???
When do you call a cop?
Deposit insurance is useless without the printing press. Utterly useless. Fractional reserve is expanded and contracted by banks TOGETHER OR NOT AT ALL.
The entire banking industry must expand its ponzi-money TOGETHER.
Thats the main reason why the Great Depression was a world-wide phenomenon.
So deposit insurance is either useless or its like putting a penny in the fuse-box.
Under anarcho-capitalism there would be regulations for banking.
They wouldn’t FOR CHRISTSAKES be run by the banks themselves. They would be developed by enforcement agents.
A country without clarity in property rights is A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.
Its that simple. If your country doesn’t have a titles office with clear land titles, if your country doesn’t have clear regulations for buying and selling land particularly…
Then your country is whats called A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.
Now you are NOT!!!!!! a Randian Reynolds. And neither is SOON. So don’t come the Randian rules with me.
The non-initiation of force is an important libertarian principle. A very important libertarian principle. An exalted libertarian principle.
But it licks the feet of clarity-in-property-rights because when we don’t have clarity-in-property-rights then we don’t know who is the initiator of force, nor do we know who is the victim.
Freedom of contract is another exalted and beloved concept of libertarianism. Lo’ how freedom of contract is beloved. But see how the false advocates, goat-fuckers from out of town pretending to preachers, so sorely abuse this concept cherished of those who love liberty.
Because freedom of contract also bows down and pays homage to clarity of property rights.
Freedom of contract isn’t even the John-The-Baptist to the clarity-of-property-rights JESUS.
We can see this in the fact that no-one can be allowed to sell themselves or be bribed into slavery except for the most limited time.
We can see this from the fact that enforcement agencies would go broke, and would never sign up to protect contracts that were not both CLEAR and FAIR and with total lines drawn in the sand where appropriate…… but also with quite a bit of wiggle room for both parties where appropriate.
Because anarcho-capitalist enforcement agencies must turn a profit. So their most important filter is the fellow who inspects the contracts, reworks them under negotiation of the parties….. and gets then so clear-cut….. yet somehow flexible and fair.
Because if you get these things right, you OK the contract, take your up-front fee…. and thereafter you know that your weekly $1 fee or whatever (for enforcement and dispute resolution) is just money-for-jam.
So you and SOON have no room to move with me on this one.
While we have a government, which I suspect we will have for many decades yet, the government is only asking for trouble offering contract-enforcement services for free ON ALL CONTRACTS NO MATTER HOW EXPLOITATIVE AND BOGUS.
If a libertarian government offers a free-for-all, all law imbedded in contracts, we will enforce contracts no matter what….
If the government does this that THAT WILL BE THE DAY when all your Shylocks and Shysters offer short-term bribes with flashing neon lights to the exhausted and struggling family who have but only eachother…… in order to get them to sign up to contracts with some subtle crapola in the fine print…. Some seemingly innocuous but, in the long term DEVASTATING clause that keeps whole networks of folks in pointless woe.
Freedom of contract is only number three of the freedom principles and can be turned horridly against itself.
There was some outfit every year that would pay off third world debtors. People indebted to their employer via contract. Such that they were virtual slaves. These people were enslaved in the same way as the legend goes of having sold ones ’soul to the company store.’
This Western aid agency would pay off the boss and I think at the same time threaten the boss somewhat…. and they would set the debt-slaves free and rightly so.
Freedom of contract takes a backseat to clarity in property rights AND THE SERIOUSNESS WITH WHICH WE TAKE A MANS RIGHT TO WHAT HE DOES ON HIS PROPERTY.
Barring gross child molestation or some such thing A mans ability to deal with his own freehold property must be exalted almost to him being a fucking Pharoah on his turf.
To be sure he needs a valid reason to kill or permanently injure someone on his property. But he certainly needs no valid reason to EXPEL someone from his property. Since he CAN be made as unto a GOD in this situation he should be made almost unto a God in this situation.
In any case I don’t want to meander too far.
You anti-Randians…. (well I don’t know about you Reynolds… you might be a piss-weak Randian) You anti-Randians (I’m not being unfair here SOON. Though I hope I may be a little out of date. I would like to think you were giving Rand a fairer shake these days) You anti-Randians have failed at your leftist reversal.
You have failed. Because you aren’t hot to get rid of all regulations. And in fact regulations are good and necessary if they are ones which lay down clarity in property rights.
Of course we have 1000 times at least as many regulations as we need. And only the tiniest fraction of the smallest increment of 1% of them would relate genuinely to clarity in property rights.
But we need some number of regulations, they need to be the right ones and when we get there we know that they will be an extension of natural law principles.
“No lies, no fraud, no government (other than enforcing contractual or criminal sanctions under the normal commercial or criminal law) – fully market based. No special laws for anyone.”
We do not need to go through a national banking collapse to know what fraud ought to mean in this context.
A fractional reserve banking contract could not and should not be enforced by an anarcho-capitalist enforcement agency. That agency would reject this silliness outright or charge a punitive fee for enforcement and indemnification.
An absolutely fundamental aspect of libertarianism though is that we are all equal before the law.
Once we can imagine that all of us have a bank license and so none of us have a bank license….
And once we can imagine ourselves under free enterprise conditions….
Well we see quite clearly that fractional reserve is a violation of natural law. That under natural law it is fraud and there is great need for regulations to draw a line in the sand insofar as what is acceptable and unacceptable in this context.
To draw a line in the sand and to bulldoze out a level playing field.
Whereas banking regulations under natural law might be relatively extensive….
…….whereas banking regulation might be vastly extensive in comparison to other areas we might expect these money-and-banking regulations to take up only a thin booklet.
Infrastructure regulations are likely to be 100 times more volumnous. Plus with infrastructure the best way to kick off the private stuff is with government-charging for roads and rivers. As odd as that may be to libertarians that is the best way to get things started.
In most other areas the volume of regulation that really are necessary for clarity-of-property-rights is likely to be very spare in comparison to these two areas of money-and-banking and especially the other area of infrastructure.



  1. Who the hell else can lump religon; economics; geopolitics & dogma together to rationally explain the rudiments of Libetarialism. Mr Bird, you are an untaped genius that can captivate Society & lead us to the promised land!.Your consistenancy & vision is without equal. Or to quote the parlance, YOU THE MAN!

  2. If only our government had leaders like Bird, we wouldn’t be subjected to shameful lolly-scramble that occurs whenever politicians want to get electe.d. I’d vote for you Birdy. Rarely do we the voter, discover such a steady, intelligent, experienced, reliable, eruldite, yet regular Bloke who has the exact concerns of his fellow man & can competantly articulate them. He’s a natural leader!

  3. Phew-that was quite the outburst Mr Bird. Just relax and think pure thoughts, because at rate your heart will explode. Are you serious or are you friends with Reynolds?

  4. This here blog claims to represaent Libertarians, the funny thing is that unless you completely subscribe to BIRD’S ideas specifically, you’ll get ditched quicker than a faulty rubber in a whore house. That’s essentially how the heirachy works here.

  5. Well Hello Roger…what did u expect! The guy has very specific ideas which belong in the ethos of a Libertarian. Afterall the guy’s a politician, not a Masochist. I suggest you scan the pervert’s net directory to discover cunts who get pleasure from being sullied by others.

  6. What happenned to your demands bird?

  7. I had to let the hostages go.

    Its not that anyone disbelieved me.

    What it boiled down to is no-one gave a toss if I broke Nabakovs and Fyodors legs.

    I upped the ante to breaking both their legs. But it just got a big yawn.

    I’ve spent two years cultivating the persona that would make folks believe I’d go through with it. But in the end it was wasted effort since they couldn’t give a toss.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: