Today government protects polluters from lawsuits by those offended because government sets the levels of pollution that are acceptable and supposedly punishes those who exceed these levels. Government installed the debt based monetary system by granting banks the privilege of creating new debt money and loaning into existence; this is the root of the current economic meltdown, because debt is not money. When government intervenes in economic activity other than to punish theft and fraud, it creates advantage for some, usually the few, and disadvantage for others, usually the many resulting a skewed distribution of wealth.

Historically, the periods of greatest economic advance, technological advance, and more normal distribution of wealth have been periods of freedom, while periods of slavery have produced human suffering, skewed distribution of wealth and economic stagnation.

What we need is freedom, not slavery and things will work out as well as possible given the constraints of depleted energy. The proposal for "fairness" or further government involvement is just a proposal for slavery and the attendant greater human suffering.

Henry - Well done.

So are you saying that gov SHOULD punish polluters and SHOULD reconsider '...granting banks the privilege of creating new debt money and loaning into existence...'??

If thats what you think, I could find a lot to agree with in that - but it doesn't sound like freedom it sounds like useful regulation??

But Henry, debt IS money, and vice versa. When I work and get paid, the money I receive is just a symbol of debt that is owed to me. I can call in that debt by handing the money over to a merchant in exchange for goods, or in numerous other ways. Money is just a symbol of debt, and works in BOTH directions... sort of like "accounts payable" and "accounts receivable."

I do agree with your observations on the value of freedom, its superior track record, and the undue suffering caused by its absence... but freedom is a slippery word. The slave buyers, sellers and users might complain that government preventing them from buying and selling people is an undue restraint of a free market and infringes their freedom to earn a living. That was the view of many Southerners in the run-up to the American Civil War, and they were often highly educated people who considered themselves to be (and often were) of otherwise high honor and integrity.

Yes, government has frequently screwed things up, but isn't that what Nate is actually saying in his essay? ... that if we are going to make it through the coming hard times we've got to accomplish profound improvements in the way we govern?

Re: debt IS money, and vice versa

preface: I'm neither an economist nor a money expert. I'm just bothered by this phrase.

I understand that the promise of future payment is exchanged for immediate cash and that it is by this mechanism that money enters our economy. That promise to pay is not actual cash, anymore than apples growing on trees are cash -- debt and apples can be exchanged for cash, but neither is cash. In healthy markets, promises of future payments can be bought and sold with cash, but that also doesn't make the debt turn into cash.

Further, a promise that is broken leaves nothing behind. If a promise was cash, there would be some residue of its prior existence -- even vaporized in a nuclear blast, the molecules that were once cash will be floating around in one form or another. A promise is not tangible and aside from the record of its creation (the contract), there is nothing to it. Hmmm... I suppose the same could be said for fiat money ... perhaps I'll just post anyway and read the comments rather than do the hard thinking.

The problem we are having in our current market is that promises are easily broken, and the realization that many are breaking promises has made people reluctant to exchange cash for those promises.

Don't waste your breath on junkies, they cannot see that DEBT IS EVIL, and like most junkies they will go to their graves with the fit hanging out of a vein.

Speaking of junkies, 8000 on the dow was a good floor but no, they need their adrenaline fix (don't glorify them as dopamine junkies Nate, they like the rough dirty stuff).

DEBT IS EVIL,

Well I dunno about that, wouldn't going through life neither owing or being owed anything by anyone be a rather sad life. Maybe you mean that the misuse of debt is evil?

Maybe you mean that the misuse of debt is evil?

Well I dunno about that, what about going through life doing what was needed doing without discriminating between self and other as benefactor. Just eliminate debt altogether ... of course along with that we would eliminate all of the drama and comedy of life. I think God would get bored stupid and have to start chucking in snakes or something.

D.Benton_Smith wrote:

debt IS money, and vice versa

Sorry but that's simply not true.
Debt by definition must involve a debtor and a debtee. Meanwhile, when people start using cigarettes or soybeans as a medium of exchange, the result is a form of money and yet no debtors or debtees need be involved.
If debt really was money then the US would be the richest nation on the planet. I agree instead with Martenson that debt is a claim on money.
PS- All or most of what DBS writes further down is correct though.

Debt (credit) gets treated like money in good economic times. In hard economic times, credit (debt) may not be extended any longer but money you already have remains yours.

I agree with you, RobinPC. And the original poster seems confused as to the difference between credit (debt) and money.

No debt = freedom

The more debt relative to income, the more cornered people are.

Musashi I think they also become more edgy.

Hi there, anagama,

I think the word that might be hanging you up is "cash" (I didn't use it my post, but you used it in yours.)

Cash is frequently thought of as a tangible item, like a dollar bill, silver coin, or the like. Since such items have physical existence we can easily slip into the idea that they have some intrinsic value, when in fact they usually have almost none. Like all other forms of money (personal checks, electronic bank records, IOU's and Treasury Bills) 'cash' derives its value from belief, trust and agreement. We agree, believe and trust that this physical (but symbolic) item will be honored by others as a medium of exchange for REAL things.

It's so easy to exchange money for the actual things we need or want that most people slip into thinking that they want money itself... but to want money itself is of course quite psychotic. What we actually need or want are the REAL things that money enables us to acquire (food, shelter, clothing, and cooperation or dominance over the actions of others.)

That's one of the essential points of Nate's essay. Whereas money is abstract and can exist in infinitely large quantities, REAL things are finite and can exist only in limited amounts.

But that's not the only problem. One of the other problems is how we control (or fail to control) the relationship between the abstract things (various forms of money) and the real things (the things we require for life.)

Unfortunately, it is possible to have symbols of symbols and that's where the serious trouble starts. We put cash in a bank and the bank gives us a statement that we have that much money on account. That statement is a symbol for the cash. The cash itself is long gone, as a mortgaged house loan (for example) and the bank has only a signed contract (the mortgage) that the loan will be repaid with interest.

That mortgage contract is thus a symbol of a symbol of a symbol.

Well, you can see that this all gets pretty complicated pretty quickly, and if the bank sells the mortgage contract (or bunches of them) you can see that things can start to get out of hand.

By the time the ownership chain of symbols is eight or ten layers deep, electronic computers become necessary just to keep records of the mess. That records exist, however, is neither guarantee nor proof that anyone understands them.

Indeed, no one does. The symbolized money in today's financial world is so multi-layered and recursive that no human mind is capable of comprehending it.

We're all guessing.

That's an interesting answer. About halfway through my own post even I started to doubt what I was saying when I got to comparing the qualities of post-apocalyptic contracts to bank notes. Plus, I was sort of hoping that the whole "cash" thing would kinda slide through. *smirk*

Anyway --- Cash or Money, whether physical or "in the bank", is worth something because we all agree to exchange goods or services for it. A promissory note is worth something because one person has agreed to provide periodic money transfers to another entity.

One of the qualities of money is that every unit should be fungible, that is, I only care that I get a twenty if I go to the ATM and ask for 20 bucks. I'm not looking for a specific bill because any twenty dollar bill is as good as the next (aside from oddball numismatically interesting bills).

In contrast, a promissory note does not have a set value -- the amount of the loan is a fixed value set when the debt and the money were made. However, the value of the note itself can fluctuate greatly depending on how reliable the debtor is or how desirable the collateral is -- in other words, a $100k loan secured with an acre of Santa Barbara beach front as collateral, is far more valuable than a $100k loan on 79 Winnebago with a blown engine. Because the value of each $100k note might vary, every $100k note is not equivalent. If every unit of money must be equivalent, then it follows that debts are not money because the value of debt is variable.

The value of cash is variable too, on the timescales you are talking about. Extremely variable. Inflation, international trade balances and exchange rates, the cost of energy, etc. all affect it. Indeed it may be more variable than your mortgage in many ways. If the bank wasn't stupid enough to loan $300K on a $100K house, the collateral may be more stable than the money. After all, it provides housing for one family whether it costs $1 or $1000 for a loaf of bread. Thus, the human value of the house is relatively constant but the money isn't. Wiemar republic Deutsch marks had so little value that they were burned for heat. But even the house has risk of value change. A flood can wipe it out. There can be no energy to get people from the house to work. A factory can close. Etc.

The problem was, people were so enamored with the intrinsic value of a house, and worse with bogus promise of appreciation, that they let the paper value be inflated over the intrinsic value. Meanwhile, the houses themselves, even the new ones, had sustainability problems - too far from work, too energy inefficient, too large.

First of all, your money debt instrument will be 'intrinsically' valuable provided that your yield (return on accumulated money) exceeds the liability represented by its issue. Unfortunately, we are in a very low yield environment and the liability is increasing geometrically. If the liability exceeds a certain subjective threshold, the liability will rocket into meaninglessness. Your money will be worthless because nobody will accept it. Its 'implied obligation' would be infinite and would exceed any possible yield.

On the other hand, the increase in yield relative to a stable liability will mean (borrowed/loaned) money will be harder and harder to obtain. This is where we are now. Banks can get 7% lending to other banks overnight. That's a pretty good yield! Lending to you is risky compared to lending to a bank since your chance of default is theoretically higher than the insured bank.

"Further, a promise that is broken leaves nothing behind."

Depends ... who makes the promise.

If you make the promise (to a bank) and walk away, the bank will go to court and obtain a judgement against you. Your wages will be garnisheed or your car reposessed or ... your house forclosed upon and you put onto the street.

Alternatively, you can petition the bankruptcy court to discharge all your debts. In that case, the debts are forgiven. These hassles involved keep people from simply walking away. That, and the appearance that some are clever and hard- working enough to claim a small part of success ... a 'win' in the gambling casino called the US economy. Some people have to be allowed to win, otherwise nobody would gamble.

Nobody is winning so nobody is playing.

It is also besides the point of the inherent liability of lent money, since the obligation is yours individually as the borrower of the money, not of the money itself.

YOUR bankruptcy would not increase the liability inherent in the money ... but millions of bankruptcies would. This is also where we are, now.

As to the promises ... again. The Federal Reserve is doing the best it can to borrow for all of us citizens. Unfortunately, there is no 'bankruptcy' for the world's largest deadbeat. The government is required to keep its promises. Unlike a hedgee fund or investment bank or commercial business, it can't cheat or 'bend' the rules. It has to always 'play it straight', even if it is doing something completely idiotic. As a result of both sets of circumstances, the Fed has become the 'fool in the market', who buys high and sells low, who buys at the top and sells at the bottom, who winds up holding all the 'bad bets' the other casino gamblers want to unload.

Since the Fed (and the Treasury) are well- known fools, any organization that anything to do with them is either another fool or a churlish knave, taking advantage of the handicapped. The more the Fed 'tries to help' by lending, the more damage it causes.

... if we are going to make it through the coming hard times we've got to accomplish profound improvements in the way we govern?

You mean, like this?

We're Laying the Groundwork for Recovery
The necessary policy tools are in place.
By BEN S. BERNANKE

As Americans well know, the challenges we now face in the financial markets and in the economy are both extraordinarily complex and historic in scope. I firmly believe, however, that with the actions policy makers are announcing today, we will be able to meet those challenges.

Our strategy will continue to evolve and be refined, and we will adapt to new developments and the inevitable setbacks. But we will not stand down until we have achieved our goals of repairing and reforming our financial system, and thereby restoring prosperity to our economy.

Over the past year, the Federal Reserve has actively used all its powers and authority to try to help our economy through this difficult time. Central banks around the world have also consulted closely and cooperated in unprecedented ways to reduce strains in financial markets and to bolster our economies. We will continue to do so. However, clearly the time had come for a more comprehensive and broad-based solution.

History teaches us that government engagement in times of severe financial crisis often arrives very late, usually at a point at which most financial institutions are insolvent or nearly so. In these conditions, the consequences and costs of inertia and inaction can be staggering. Fortunately, that is not the situation we face today.

The Congress and the administration acted at a time when the great majority of financial institutions, though stressed by highly volatile and difficult market conditions, remain capable of fulfilling their critical function of providing new credit for our economy. Their prompt passage of the financial rescue legislation made possible the critical measures that will be announced this morning. These steps will allow us to restore more normal market functioning, and encourage private capital to further support the reinvigoration of financial markets.

I also find it heartening that we are seeing not just a national response but a global response to the crisis, commensurate with its global nature. Indeed, this weekend, the finance ministers and central bankers of the G-7 industrialized countries announced a comprehensive plan to unfreeze credit and money markets, increase capital in banks and other financial intermediaries, and protect deposits. Each of these governments is now moving quickly to put their own specific measures in place. The announcements we are making today are consistent with the G-7's statement of principles.

As in all past crises, at the root of the problem is a loss of confidence by investors and the public in the strength of key financial institutions and markets. This has had cascading and unwelcome effects on credit availability for households and businesses, and on the value of savings. Under these circumstances, steps to restore confidence in our institutions and markets will go far toward resolving the current market stress. Our economy will not be able to function at its best unless and until financial market stability returns. The bold actions taken by the Congress, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other agencies, together with the normal recuperative powers of the financial markets, will lay the groundwork for financial and economic recovery.

The most immediate responsibility of policy makers and elected officials is to restore confidence in our credit markets. Even as we do this, we must begin to consider long-term reforms that will mitigate similar crises in the future. A comprehensive review of our regulatory structures is an essential task in the coming year. The events of the past year or two have highlighted regulatory gaps and deficiencies that we must address to improve the structure of our markets and the resiliency of our economy. As we recover from the current crisis, it will be important to address these issues as soon as possible, to develop a regulatory structure that will better respond to future economic challenges.

Policy makers here and around the globe have taken a series of extraordinary steps. Americans can be confident that every resource is being brought to bear: historical understanding, technical expertise, economic analysis and political leadership.

I am not suggesting the way forward will be easy. But the tools are in place to respond effectively and with force. These tools will bolster the capital of our financial institutions, restore confidence in their debt, and offer increased access to funding for businesses. Their application, together with the underlying power and resilience of the American economy, will help to restore confidence to our financial system and place our economy back on a path to vigorous growth.

Mr. Bernanke is chairman of the Federal Reserve.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394360912831019.html?mod=todays_us_op...

Reading what are the chairman's priorities is enlightening. He is interested in, "repairing and reforming our financial system, and thereby restoring prosperity to our economy ... to encourage private capital to further support the reinvigoration of financial markets."

Not a word about the people, it's all process, for the chairman.

"As in all past crises, at the root of the problem is a loss of confidence by investors and the public in the strength of key financial institutions and markets. "

Throwing money at our financial institutions will magically solve everything, eh?

This is where we are here and now. The captain of the Titanic now has all the administrative tools in place to right the ship, so to speak. Doncha feel confident, already?

The real problem is how to we get from the boat deck to where we need to go ... without hitting the bottom of the Atlantic, first? Yowza, that's a problem. Rapid economic transitions have historically required revolutions or conquests and even so, there is little relevant 'economic history' to serve as a guide. The Soviet Union emerged from a crony- capitalist autocracy but required Imperial Germany as a midwife. Socialism snuck up on France, Germany and England for political, rather than economic reasons, as all were dependent on the US for capital in the ten years post WWII.

Japan maintained its centralized banking and finance structure even though Douglas McArthur completely re-wrote the Japanese constitution (and outlawed military expenditures at great economic benefit to the Japanese). In the post-war, post- modern NOW, the changes have tended toward the 'born-again US-style capitalism' that has transformed the Indian and Chinese economies and is making headway in Africa. The countries that have made the most progress toward a more reasonable relationship to natural resources have been Denmark and ... ??? Denmark follows a social - democratic semi-welfare state approach that is similar to Germany's. Their economy has been experiencing some turmoil as they are in the Eurozone and their banks undoubtedly issued and bought bad loans. Unlike Iceland, they did not over-leverage their reserves nor did they have a housing bubble.

The question is whether Denmark's approach is a model at all, other than the manifestation of a form national conservatism and caution that inherent to Denmark. Adjusting the knobs on our economy will not be enough to pay off or settle all debts, reduce to small level consumption, build a level of savings, and invest in a resource- sensitive (capital-conserving) infrastructure ... all roughly simultaneously.

The most important message that Mr Bernanke has to offer us is this, "Americans can be confident that every resource is being brought to bear: historical understanding, technical expertise, economic analysis and political leadership."

The Fed and its contemporaries have shot their wad. Let the games begin!

I do not agree that debt is money. Debt is a claim against someone who has issued the debt. The debtor is a counter party and you rely upon his ability to pay to give value to the debt. You will find this out when your bank does not honor your checking account, or if it does you can buy very little with the depreciated value of what is denominated in. Circulating the debt instruments does not make it money, but does make it circulating evidence of debt. It is a second rate medium of exchange subject to depreciation and default.

Gold and silver have intrinsic value, and do not require a counter party to ultimately be called upon to pay. History has shown that gold and silver are superior money for these reasons, and for other traits like durability, easy divisibility, high value per quantity, and difficulty in expanding the supply.

When you work and accept something in exchange, you are using a medium of exchange. It is only of value because you recognizes it as having value in exchange. It is not a symbol of a debt owed to you for you work. Rather, under our monetary system, you have accepted a third party's debt as a settlement of the debt owed to you for your work by your employer, and only accept it because you think you can use it in exchange with others. You don't call in the debt when you exchange the money to a merchant, but rather you pass on the medium of exchange to him; you cannot call the debt of the third party, the bank, other than by accepting debt of a different form, perhaps as you cash a check at your bank and get debt of the Federal Reserve bank in exchange (Federal Reserve Notes). If you really called in the debt by passing it on to a merchant, then the debt would be canceled instead of being further passed on by the merchant to other. So in effect we just circulate hot potatoes and the rate at which we circulate them, the velocity has an effect on the value we can exchange them for, as does the total volume of the hot potatoes in circulation.

My point is that debt is not money but debt; there is no money, only circulating debt. If banks can issue their own debts as money and loan them out to you as interest, you do not have money circulating, but you have bank debt circulating. It can be expanded as easily as banks can make loans. It depreciates in value as the supply increases. It can be defaulted upon. The loans made to the population can be defaulted upon. The interest on the loaned debt money enriches banks at the expense of the population.

My point is that debt is not money but debt; there is no money, only circulating debt.

Money (i.e. the right to print money) is at the moment monopolized on a national level. Meaning the garantee for your "promisory notes" in your pocket comes from the govnt and not from a bank. Yes, every bank "could" print (digitalize, etc..) money. Nat. govnt would then have to crack down on it, because according to not only the US constitution, the nat. govnt has the sole right to print money.

But you are right. Money is not directly debt - just almost. As a promisory note (read your dollar, please) it is "backed". It is a securitized value. Way back when, the value behind it was theoretically gold. Factually it is a securitization of next year's (or that in 20 years?) tax income. That is, btw, the reason all governments want "growth". Then they have more future earnings which can be securitized and therefore more money can be printed..

Right now, now that the layers of debt based on this securitization have become somewhat surreal - expecially in regards to the global expectations of growth and therefore the ability to cover the compound debt - trust in the security behind the promisory note is failing. The securitized "junk mortgages" have busted and the reason they are threatening to bring the system down is that our national currencies (not only the USDollar!) reflect the "junk" security factually behind it. There are real reasons that trust is seriously being strained.

Now back to growth, the subject of the essay. Everything Nate and Robert wrote are right in a sense.

My objection is only that they are tackling the problem (as is the case on any sustainability site) much too deep. For as long as the right to print money remains on the national level, any deeper issues can hardly be addressed. We need to wrest those rights away from the nations in order to create a more objective sort of money. A money which does not depend on growth...

Cheers, Dom

If we listen to economist currency, checking accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, and the like are included in their M2 measure of money. All of these are circulating debts of banks.

Back in 1933 the M2 "money" supply was $32.2 billion in the USA. It is now $7,712.9 billion, an increase of 239.5 times. The currency component (federal reserve notes which are the things we carry around in our pockets, wallets and purses) did not go up 239.5 times, however.

Checking accounts are created by bookkeeping entry out of thin air by local banks and loaned out at interest. You simply sign a note payable to the bank for a loan and they create a checking account for you in an equal amount. The bank's assets and liabilities increase as a result in equal amounts. The checking account may circulated from bank to bank, clearing against the reserves banks keep for such clearing, or it may be converted to currency as when you cash a check, but the money supply stays at the increased amount until you repay the loan and interest thereon, at which time the loan is canceled along with the checking account balance as you write a check to pay the loan. So banks do create debt based "money" out of thin air.

Likewise, the federal reserve notes are liabilities carried on the books of the federal reserve bank. They may be printed by the US treasury, but they are issued by the federal reserve bank by loaning them out, frequently to member banks to put into their vaults to cover check cashing. So again banks do create debt based "money" out of thin air.

Notice that all this "money" is debt of banks. It can be expanded as easily as making a new loan. It is predatory because the borrower pays interest to the banks on something created out of nothing. It is a privilege granted to banks by the government which transfers wealth out of the hands of the many into the hands of the few; however, were you printed up your own bills of credit and loaned them into existence you could go to jail for counterfeiting.

Because this "money" is debt, it is subject to counter party (the bank) default such as when banks become insolvent or get a bank holiday.

If we want money that does not have counter party default risk, then we should use gold and silver. It is a stable money that does not depend on growth. It can be carried in coin form or placed in warehouses against which receipts (paper or electronic) can be issued for convenience in transactions, so long as each receipt is 100% backed with the proper amount of actual metal in the warehouse. This takes away the risk of default such as is being experienced in the current panic. This makes inflation of the money supply extremely difficult so price fluctuations in the economy would depend on supply of goods and services, and the velocity of circulation (psychological attitudes).

Debt is not money. Money is:
1. A medium of exchange.
2. A store of value.

#2 is not valid for the current paper debt pieces. It is NOT money.

"What we need is freedom, not slavery"

+1 for that.

Freedom is an ambiguous yet highly romanticized term (one of the reason political hacks like Bush love it). What freedom(s) are you calling for?

We have the freedom to give mortgages to people who can't afford them as well as the freedom to label instruments that contain these "sub-prime" mortgages as AAA rated, and the freedom to claim that in the case of default they will be covered by insurance. We have the freedom to amplify the inherent risk in reserve based banking with leverage via exotic financial products (derivatives and the like). Should we continue these freedoms? Did you call for Paulsen and his ilk to let the free market play out with regard to AIG and the rest?

We had the freedom to dump toxic waste into streams and all the other things that business people will do if left unchecked. Should we return to the freedom of no environmental regulations and just rely on trust and the good will of our CEOs and their minions?

We had the freedom to give massive bribes (aka campaign contributions) to our politicians but now we have limited those bribes. Should we return to the freedom of unlimited bribery?

Should we have the freedom to own whatever firepower we want? Should we be free to carry bazookas and machine guns to the grocery store in case of a traffic dispute?

We have the freedom to zone commercial in one area and let residential areas sprawl ever outwards from that. People are free to buy a V8 truck and commute 50 miles each way to their job as a shipping and receiving clerk. People are even free to commute over 100 miles to their jobs in the vehicle of their choosing despite the fact that they use far far more oil than the average person on earth. Would it be slavery to tax (and therefore discourage) these outlandish uses of an exhaustible resource?

In terms of of income disparity nothing distorts it more than the freedom to pay CEOs whatever their friends on the board (in many cases fellow CEOs looking for higher comparables) think sounds good and the freedom to hire workers from among the millions upon never ending millions of immigrants coming into the labor force surpressing wages and creating a perpetual "buyers market" for labor.

If your use of "slavery" implies that you are concerned with the common worker, an end to immigration and world population growth would be the greatest thing that ever happened to workers. If by slavery you mean "having to take orders from the government" or "having things run by the government" then I hope you are a Libertarian. Because as much as the Republicans preach "limited government" they currently increase it more than Democrats since they finance it with the initially less painful borrowing rather than taxes. Case in point is the 4 or 5 trillion in debt that Bush has amassed. And, despite spouting phrases that include "states rights" during their campaigns, they are quick to overturn/outlaw any state law (as in take away that state's freedom) that doesn't meet their approval like assisted suicide or medical marijuana.

One of the icons of the "freedom-loving" financial community is Microsoft. The financial media was standing and cheering as the government repeatedly gave them only a slap on the wrist after finding them guilty of using their their monopoly position to surpress competition in other software areas. Is that part of the freedom you are advocating - freedom to use monopoly power to dominate and create disparity in the marketplace?

You have freedom when you're easy in your harness. - Robert Frost

There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought. - Charles Kingsley

It is good to have the freedom to conduct this discourse. Thanks to TOD.

The liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties - Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me you mock the idea of freedom.

Freedom is self ownership and the attendant rights. The opposite is ownership by others, slavery, and the attendant burdens. Of course freedom is not license to do anything, but it is license to do anything that does not involve an act of aggression against another. A free person can enter or leave a market place as he chooses, but he cannot pass on his costs to others by dumping pollution into the commons. When you own yourself, you can dispose of yourself as you see fit, including doing things that might be bad for your health, like eating sugar, smoking tobacco or other substances, and gaining assistance in suicide. When you own yourself you keep the fruits of your labor if you so choose, so rigged markets are destructive of this right of yours and you have the right to defend yourself against this destructiveness either individually via lawsuits or as a group via laws to punish monopoly collusion and fraud in market transactions.

As an owner of yourself, you have a natural right to protect yourself, which includes the right to own and use the best means for doing so, i.e., arms. Government does not grant this natural right, but often attempts to infringe upon it. So yes you do have a right to carry a gun, but you only have a right to use it to defend yourself, not to attack another in road rage.

So much of what government does today is destructive of freedom, and the majority suffer as a consequence. The black hand of government and collusion with corporate and other special interests is the cause of much of our economic ill. The solution is not to blame freedom and free markets. The solution is to eliminate most government involvement. A good place to start would to eliminate the creation of these artificial entities we call corporations, which could not exist without the government grant of incorporation. Another would be to eliminate government licensing of professions and businesses. Another would be to eliminate the grant of privilege to banks to create money out of thin air and loan it into existence (interestingly the US Constitution prohibits states from making anything but gold and silver coins legal tender in commerce, but this is ignored as bills of credit issued by the Federal Reserve circulate with the illegal designation "legal tender for all debts public or private").

I suppose that after decades of indoctrination in government owned or government controlled private schools that the concept of freedom has become cloudy in some minds, but in reality it is not difficult to grasp. It is just that those who want to be taken care of in life and lack the drive for independence wish to impose upon others the burden of their own existence. Somehow the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been distorted into the right to a good life provided free of charge by big daddy in Washington DC.

Your definition of freedom is narrow. You have confused freedom for a reasonable amount of freedom balanced with other's freedom. I.E. you defined about the right amount of freedom but not what freedom is.

Being able to mow people down with an AK-47 is freedom. So is being able to go about your business without someone mowing you down with an AK-47. Ultimately, one persons "freedom from" requires reasonable limitations on another's "freedom to" and vice versa. By defining freedom as narrowly as you have, one cannot discuss the freedoms that people have to give up in order for others to also be free.

You are redefining freedom to mean something other than what it actually is. What you are defining should be called something else, like "just freedom" (as in justice, not as in mere). Because it mixes justice and freedom as well as balancing freedoms. Or balanced freedom.

This sort of freedomist fundamentalism is just as warped an ideology as any other and is a peculiarly US response to all that ails you.

If you wnat freedom then just quit your job, abandon your family and community, live in the moment and help yourself to whatever you too can also withdraw from the natural capital.

Historically, the greatest periods of economic advance, technologial advance and more "normal??" distributions of wealth have been in times of abundnat energy supplies, which have transfered the role of slave to the coal, oil, gas or ox and horse, freeing up the humans to concentrate on other pursuits. The energy however came well before the freedom that you speak of.

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. ~James Madison, speech, Virginia Convention, 1788

The very few in this world, want freedom. Or truly know what it is. What the Human longs for, is safety. ~C_A

We anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves. ~Errico Malatesta, l'Agitazione, 18 June 1897