Armchair, being confused is no excuse for reverting to the false assumption that central banks are privately owned.

The value of plastic is unrelated to the value of money.

Interest paid cancels out interest received.

We lend the banks money, even if you're not aware of it.
However, even if we weren't, a change in the amount the banks were lending us would have the same effect.

Governments should not waste scarce resources acquiring gold.

As for the idea of giving older people more votes, the misinformation they believe wrecks the theoretical case for it. Younger people have a bigger stake in Australia's future. And in practice if we'd had that kind of weighting, Australia would've been subject to racist laws much longer.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen, Greece has limited credit; Australia has unlimited credit.
As long as we only borrow in the currency that we print, we're immune from their problems.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu, if you're unsure of the benefits of having a state, you only have to look at the places that don't: they're all violent and nobody is safe.

Dear Aidan,

I was not discussing the benefits or otherwise of having a state.

Lets assume for argument-sake that such benefits exists, then what?
Does it justify the harassment of innocent people who happen to live on God's blessed land and ordering them to follow your laws or else?

This is a simple moral question: Do the ends justify the means, especially violent means?

- My answer is clearly 'No'.

How more so when the same legitimate ends (personal safety) can be achieved by less violent means?

Armchair,
Our money is backed by something and it's not the intrinsic value of the metal and plastic of our currency. What backs our money is society's collective promises regarding future payments.

Promises and our reliability to fulfil them back the whole of a functioning society in general. Eg, my local Coles down the street has a sign on the door telling me that they will open at 8:30 on weekdays, I regularly rely on this promise when I go there at opening time to get milk for breakfast. My faith in this promise they made allows me to confidently spend my time and energy to go there with the belief that I will be able to make a purchase. The vast majority of interactions that you have with people and entities relies on micro-promises like this, ie. social interactions are backed by promises (eg: a b.y.o barbeque is backed by promises-- invitees make promises to be there and bring their own drinks the while the host promises to supply food and entertainment). These promises can be said to have real wealth: it's total value is our functioning society.

So, it should be no real surprise that promises can also be directly used to back our money. When you take out a loan you are promising to pay it back at a later date. Our collective ability to pay our banks loans is what backs our currency, ie: our ability to fulfil our financial promises. So even though banks create this money out of "nothing" it is backed by something that is real, all-be-it intangible. Our money is not backed by some make believe fairy-dust enabled fantasy.

Yuyutsu,

Do you really think anyone would be better off if there were loads of outlaws around? Because that's what answering NO amounts to.

There should be restrictions on what laws the state can impose, and in what circumstances it can use violence (as I've previously stated, I think it should be restricted to self defence or the defence of others). But the law must apply to everyone, otherwise it won't be much use for protecting anyone.

Dear Aidan,

Had there been no laws, then there couldn't also be any outlaws!

But I do assume to understand what you actually mean by "outlaws": rascals, murderers, rapists, thugs, thieves, fraudsters, etc., yet one doesn't need to become like them in order to beat them.

Having a state and making laws is an overkill and is commonly used to fulfil other ambitions, other than mutual protection. Nothing of course is wrong when people combine voluntarily to forward their ambitions, but that currently is not the case.

Yes, society needs to protect its members against the above kind of people, so by all means, if necessary they should be sent to Hades in order to prevent them from doing any further harm - but no legislation, lawyers and formal courts are necessary for that which is natural and common-sense beyond doubt. It is simply not justified to inflict laws on innocent people and forcing even those who for whatever reason are not interested (yet committed no crime) into becoming members of a state.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I mean "outlaws" in the original sense: people outside the protection of the law.
With nothing to lose, you could expect them to be armed and very dangerous.

Without legislation to tell people what they should avoid doing, and without formal courts to decide what is beyond doubt, it's a safe bet that innocent people would often get lynched. Having laws is a far more civilised alternative.

You don't have to become a member of a state – just being on its territory is sufficient to be subject to its laws until you leave its territory.