Social Question

Pazza's avatar

Why does human life always come second to monetary gain?

Asked by Pazza (3173 points ) November 29th, 2009

I’ve always been bemused about how paper money has value, and thought to myself, why can’t you just print your own, surely people would just accept it, any hey what harm could it do.

Then you realise that this causes inflation and de-values every penny that everyone else have given their blood sweat and tears to earn.

But what if you found that every penny you spend on a credit, debit, or loan was created from nothing? and this money isn’t really valuable, its just a promisary note to repay!

So, though I don’t want to get all bilical on your ass, the bible does warn us (in its own way) that money is the root of all evil,
why do human beings always come second to monetary gain?

Surely it should be the other way round!

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

45 Answers

Buttonstc's avatar

Actually, to be more precise, the Bible does not say that.

It says that the LOVE OF money is the root of all evil.

This, the one word answer to your question would be, essentially, greed.

Money, kept in proper perspective and balance, does not have to lead to evil. It can also be used for good.

But when it is loved and valued disproportionately to the needs of others, that’s when evil enters in.

The same principle is also expressed in the ten commandments when we are exhorted not to covet our neighbors’ wife or worldly goods ( wealth, money).

Again we see the same thing. Covetousness is greed. The ROOT of evil.

…“not to get all biblical on your ass” or anything.

:)

Pazza's avatar

@Buttonstc
No probs, I’ve never read the bible anyhoo, I just half remember something about the mark of the beast, which I interpreted as money.

Buttonstc's avatar

I Timothy 6:10

For the love of money is the root of all evil…

laureth's avatar

What’s this, faith-based economics?

Surely that will work as well as faith-based medicine, without the placebo effect.

Buttonstc's avatar

Well, you’re not too far off the mark as there are some who have interpreted the mark of the Beast that way.

And when RFID chips became more widely publicized, they really had a field day with that :)

Especially when it became known that there was a possibility of implanting them subcutaneously (enabling someone to do that with their credit card number to wave over a scanner.)

I think any type of specific connections of stuff like that with the book of Revelation is highly speculative and potentially dangerous. It’s usually the more fanatical type of fundys who specialize in that stuff and allows it to fuel their paranoia.

I mean, it can be an entertaining little pastime, but I personally prefer a more rational and balanced look at things.

But there are many parts of the Bible that contain observations of basic human behavior similar to psychology. Greed is one of the oldest problems besetting mankind so it doesn’t take a big bunch of pseudo-prophecy to figure that one out.

:)

Buttonstc's avatar

@laureth

True that.

Actually, it was more along the lines of idle speculation (at least on my part.)

laureth's avatar

@Buttonstc – I’m not poo-pooing you. I meant the question itself. :)

Buttonstc's avatar

Well that’s fine.

I was poo-pooing the fundamentalist who go all gah-gah over anything and everything in the book of Revelation.

It is ALL figurative narrative and language but they insist on claiming that they know exactly which future events everything corresponds to. This succeeds in giving the impression that all Christians are numbskulls.

I even laugh everytime I see one of those bumper stickers that says something about if you find this car going along without a driver, I’ve been raptured. Give me a break.

ragingloli's avatar

And greed is the fundamental driving factor of capitalism. Which makes it all the more amusing/sad/ironic that the country that is supposedly christian by majority is also a fervent, almost obsessive, supporter of capitalism.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

It never comes second, to me. Says the atheist.

PandoraBoxx's avatar

Work “that denegrades education’” into that statement, @ragingloli, and you’ve got it.

mattbrowne's avatar

Money isn’t the root of all evil. The obsession about it is. Money was a great invention. Banks were a great invention. Banks aren’t the root of all evil. The obsession with inflated expectations about their return on equity are.

Janka's avatar

I think it is not accurate at all to say that human beings “always” come second to monetary gain.

There is a lot of good in this world. Do not close your eyes to it, or exaggerate the evil.

Pazza's avatar

@mattbrowne
The only thing that has value is human labour hense the term ‘human resource’, the only good bank would be a bank that was owned by the people and run by public servants for the good of the people, this bank would hold excess human hours to be lent as credit to people at a small amount of interest, that is to say that the person borrowing, would then have to transfer back to the lender the hours of labour owed, plus a couple more for the privilege of borrowing someone else’s labour.

Ps. Making money from money used to be called usery and was a crime!
Anytime money is created from money it inflates the ecomony and devalues you labour.
Also, we don’t live in a capitalist scociety anymore, THERE IS NO CAPITAL!, its all DEBT!, and might I add debt owed to private banks with no loyalty to any nation.

@laureth
The bible quote in the question (not that its a quote), was actually supposed to be incidental. Though I don’t believe its the word of God, I do think it serves as a stark warning by the originators of the bible texts. That is to say that you would be a fool not to take notice of the fundamental message.

@Buttonstc
Glad to see someone else sceptical aout RFID.
Once your chiped and all your money is digitised, you put a foot wrong and your screwed.

@everyone
Did I come across as a happy clappin bible bashin funda’MENTAL’ist with that question?

laureth's avatar

You might be assuming here that corporate profits aren’t for the good of some people. They’re good for the investors, the owners, generally the employees, and for the patrons who wish the bank would open more branches. Ergo, banks are run for the good of people, just not the people you’re probably thinking about.

Besides, what is debt if not someone else’s capital that you’re borrowing? (Yes, money is an imaginary symbol of capital. That we all agree it has value is the reason it has value. If you printed your own money, people would probably not agree that it has value, and it might even get you arrested.)

I agree that being overly obsessed (“in love with”) money is probably not the best of options. However, I also think that you can get that message from all sorts of other venues besides the Bible.

There are more things that have value than simply human labor. The three generally accepted ways of creating wealth are agriculture, mining, and manufacturing (adding value). I believe it’s a mistake to outsource too much of these activities, and then just try to make a living (as a country) from moving these resources around. That’s simply moving real wealth around and deriving a living from someone else’s labor without really creating anything else of value.

Money is basically crystallized human labor. Your description of a bank holding “excess human hours” is what they do, generally. Those hours are on deposit at the bank from people like you and me. (Yes, they are in a form created by the government, or by banks, but like the Velveteen Rabbit, they become real when someone uses them.) Inflation is created when too many people are trying to buy too many things, driving up the price of goods and services. If people sit on their money and don’t spend it, we get deflation, which is visible when you see things like “new lower price!” signs at stores. Supply and demand.

mattbrowne's avatar

@Pazza – Making money from money by lending also involves spending money for money received. You can only lend if someone else wants to save. The first has to be a bit higher so that banks can cover their operation and this can be done without inflated expectations about return on equity. This isn’t greed yet, this is good business practice. The problem are the excesses.

laureth's avatar

Actually, banks can and do create money that they can lend, even if people don’t deposit it.

mattbrowne's avatar

Well, the redemption amount/countervalue has to come from somewhere, right? If you create additional money from nothing inflation is the result. Countries do that occasionally.

laureth's avatar

In a perfect world, they could create a dollar, lend it out, and when it gets paid back, zap that dollar out of existence. However, reality is a little more fuzzy.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

People are insatiable. They always want more. There have been all kinds of movies and books created based on the greed of mankind.. like the story of the man who had all the money and material possessions he could ever hope for.. but found himself alone.

Another pearl of wisdom from the bible says something like: ”... whatsoever state I am in, therewith to be content…” meaning.. be happy and thankful for what you have..

wundayatta's avatar

There are so many incorrect facts in this question, it’s a wonder anyone decided to answer it.

I’ve always been bemused about how paper money has value, and thought to myself, why can’t you just print your own, surely people would just accept it, any hey what harm could it do.

Bemuse yourself all you want. Until you understand that money in any form is a metaphor for the value of other things, you won’t understand how money works. Money is a metaphor for trust. It’s an agreement between all of us that we trust that money (in whatever form we make it) equals the value of an appropriate amount of goods and services relative to all goods and services in the economy.

You can’t print your own money because no one would trust it.

Then you realise that this causes inflation and de-values every penny that everyone else have given their blood sweat and tears to earn.

Well, ok. You’re right about this—or you would be—if people could print their own money. The trick is to keep an appropriate amount of money in the system so that there is enough for all goods and services in existence, plus a little extra to encourage people to create more value.

But what if you found that every penny you spend on a credit, debit, or loan was created from nothing?

It isn’t created from nothing. (see explanation above).

and this money isn’t really valuable, its just a promisary note to repay!

It’s not about repayment. What nonsense! It’s about allowing people to exchange things. Without exchange, money means nothing, because trust and valuation are unnecessary. That’s why when there’s a recession, money supply dwindles. No one makes loans. It’s a crisis of confidence. That’s why central banks pump more money into the system. It encourages people to think there is plenty of value in our world, and they can go out and make more of it.

Why do human beings always come second to monetary gain? Surely it should be the other way round!

It is the other way around. Human beings do not come second to monetary gain. Without humans, there is no value and hence, no money. Money is impossible without humans. Meaningless. It is only human value, and the value of what we make and do that makes money possible and necessary.

It seems to me that you couldn’t make a question more filled with bait than this one. It is wrong on just about every level. Is the asker genuine about this, or is this some kind of trip?

See. No trust. No exchange of money.

YARNLADY's avatar

@daloon that’s exactly what I was thinking. It appears they aren’t really answering a question so much as discussing some of the vague terms used by the OP

Kraigmo's avatar

I think the word “always” is incorrect. Should be “oftentimes”.

Our culture’s economy is based on the ideas of consumption (closed loop, or not), and endless eternal growth. Those factors certainly encourage the placing of money over human life. The only thing counteracting that is the consciences of specific individual humans in the government, Wall Street, and corporations.

We as American children, are taught that hard work is done for money, not for love. That doctors will only do a good job, if paid for it… that engineers will only design a good product if paid… etc. And these ideas are somewhat true, but not entirely true.

There are functional anarchic subcultures in most countries, including America. These people produce food, art, goods, and services…. out of a sense of love, creativity, duty, or compassion. Regardless of the monetary presence. We have a lot to learn from the functional anarchists.

and i’m not proposing anarchism or any other -ism

mattbrowne's avatar

@daloon – Great answer!

Pazza's avatar

@daloon
OOOooo, a scathing attack, I almost got upset there, the tears ran down my legs :-p.
let me guess, you studied ecconomics at school!.....

wundayatta's avatar

@Pazza Economics was but one of many subjects I studied.

I’m sorry about that scathing stuff. I think I could have left it out. I was just a twee bit annoyed at the time. Still, you should know that I held back on some much more serious stuff, mostly because I don’t approve of casting aspersions on people, when I have no idea what their motives are.

But I guess I can ask now—why did you ask a question with so many incorrect assumptions and facts? Did you do it because you truly believe what you said, or did you do it because you just wanted to see if you could stir up a hornet’s nest?

Pazza's avatar

@daloon
I guess fundamentally I get really pissed at governments and central banks for the mess they’ve gotten this world into, I look at the wars that have been faught and see how they were funded, and had to ask myself what where the motives for funding said wars.

I don’t really understand the ‘incorrect assumptions’ bit, but you have to excuse my ignorance as I didn’t study ecconomics, but surely you must be able to see that the perpetual and exponentialy increasing debt that the central banking system creates can in the end, only collapse an ecconomy?

As for the hornets nest, Its not really about that, its more about loading a question to create an awareness and provoke other people into adding their knowledge to a subject to create a larger view of the whole picture rather than just a few pieces.

So one question in my mind that has to be answered is ‘why do we need central banks?’ why can’t the government print its own money, why does the central bank have to loan it to the government at interest, and if the central bank is the sole creator of the money with inherent debt attached, then how the hell are you suposed to get out of debt?

Also, going slightly off topic (but not totaly Mr. moderator!) as far as I am aware, all fiat run ecconomies are essentially in bankruptcy, and that it is the pledge of our labour by the government through the birth cirtificate bond that stops the central banks from foreclosing on that ecconomy. This also leads to an ever increasing taxation on a yearly basis to prevent the spiraling debt ending up in hyper-inflation, though as far as I can see this is an inevitability, especially with all the bailouts.

But hey-ho if I’m wrong I’m wrong, and I’l take it on the chin. All said and done Its just an opinion.

wundayatta's avatar

@Pazza Maybe not assumptions, as understandings based in, perhaps, a lack of knowledge. You really would be helped better by a class in economics than you can be here. Or, you can take a nightly course called “Marketplace,” a show that can be heard on NPR stations.

As to funding wars—the dictum “follow the money” is very helpful. The Iraq war has sent billions into the pockets of Bush friends. But that’s not government who did that. It’s one administration. I think it is a mistake to condemn all government for the actions of one administration or one leader.

Debt does not lead to a collapsing economy, necessarily. In fact, it’s the other way around. It can help an economy grow. Lack of money to borrow is what leads to a collapsing economy. That is what has been the problem in the last two years in the US. It is impossible for businesses to get enough capital to operate, much less expand.

I think you are referring to credit card and mortgage debt that was pushed on economically illiterate people. It is a serious problem, but not unsolvable. However, debt is not increasing “exponentially.” It can’t. Well, maybe in Kenya or something, but I’m not even sure about that. So here’s the thing—when you said “exponentially,” were you exaggerating for dramatic effect, or do you think that is a fact? I can’t tell with you.

Perhaps precisely because you do “load” your questions. I guess I want you to know that I don’t like it when people load questions. I don’t think it’s necessary. And if you want to create a larger view of the whole picture, you can ask additional questions or add more detail to your question. It makes me feel manipulated, and I think it is counterproductive, because I am less likely to answer questions that are, in my opinion, manipulative.

You ask why we need a central bank. That’s a perfectly good question. Why not ask it? Together with all those questions in that paragraph. Or separate them out. They are all worthy of discussion and don’t require you to load the question at all. When you load questions, it seems like you have a political agenda, rather than an interest in answers. Perhaps you do have a political agenda. In that case, why not be honest about it and stand up for it? Usually people use rhetorical techniques like slanting questions when they don’t have any real information to support their point of view.

So I would prefer it if you ask your questions from a point of really wanting to know the answers, instead of suggesting that that you already know the answer, and aren’t going to really listen to anyone else’s answers.

You have perhaps a dozen perfectly good questions in the post above if you ask them honestly, without trying to provoke anyone. I don’t think people around here like to be provoked. A lot of people would call you a “troll” for that behavior. Personally, I don’t mind “trolling” because, as long as you don’t get angry, it is very easy to show how a troll is wrong and/or just trying to push a political point of view.

You sound sincere, so I am answering you. If I ever feel like you are manipulating me again, I won’t bother to answer. Or if I answer, it will be to point out the rhetorical techniques you are using, and how worthless it is to pay attention to comments that use such techniques.

I really hope you do ask many of the questions in that comment. They are actually quite good questions, and could generate an interesting discussion, so long as you don’t slant the question.

YARNLADY's avatar

@daloon very good comments – I might copy for future reference

laureth's avatar

@Pazza says, “Why do we need central banks? Why can’t the government print its own money?”

The Government does print our money. The Central bank (the Federal Reserve) is the part of the government responsible for doing so. The question above is like saying, “Why do we need lungs? Can’t the body just breathe on its own?”

Pazza's avatar

@laureth
I think you need to look a little deeper, the FED is a privately owned bank with no ties to the US, your government loans money at interest from the FED!

MY QUESTION AGAIN IS WHY????

My god woman, I don’t even live in that country and I knew that, or are you telling me I’m wrong?......If thats the case, fine I’ll go away bye bye….... ;-p

laureth's avatar

So, I did that digging you suggested.

Created on December 23, 1913, when President Woodrow Wilson signed
Public Law No. 43–63. An image of the law is here:
http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/files/105/FRA-LH-PL63-43.pdf

Those who run the Federal Reserve are appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate, just like the upper management of every other
Federal agency.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000241----000-.html

In 2000, the Fed was directed to pay the Treasury the accumulated
profits of $3.7 billion.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000289----000-.html

Subsequent to 2000, profits of the Federal Reserve are either used to
pay down the Federal debt, or to add to the national gold reserves.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000290----000-.html

Seems like a pretty strong connection to the Federal Government to me.

YARNLADY's avatar

@laureth good work, thanks for the info

Pazza's avatar

@laureth
1 – 63–43 is an act. not a law.
2 – the FED people are not picked by the president (he’s just a puppet) he just signs the documents.
3 – Your still 12 odd trillion in debt????? who du owe that to?
4 – The FED act may have been passed in the senate, but if you research the lead up to when it was passed and where the act was drafted (research ‘Jekyll Island Conference (1910–11)’ you will find it was never meant to be in the interests of the people.

And of course theres a connection, if there wasn’t they wouldn’t be able to bleed the public dry through the back gate.

I suppose it all depends on where you get your information from now doesn’t it!

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Secrets_of_the_Federal_Reserve/jekyll_island-1.htm

Warburg’s
Morgan’s
Rothschild’s
Rockefeller’s

These families have no interest in patriotism.

@YARNLADY
You can thank me for the info later. Feel free to copy an paste.

YARNLADY's avatar

@Pazza I have no respect for the opinions of someone who says the president is a puppet, and most of your other opinions as well

Pazza's avatar

@YARNLADY
What makes you think I crave your respect?

Pazza's avatar

@YARNLADY
I can’t believe you actually put yourself beneath your President, he’s your servant.He should do as the people ask, without question.

I have no respect for anybody who doesn’t respect human life.

laureth's avatar

1. When an act is signed into law, it becomes a law. At least in the U.S. legal system, of course – I don’t know about your country.

2. Okay, if you’re so deep into conspiracy theory that you’re saying the President is just obeying someone else, I really can’t help you.

3. The National Debt is owed to… who ever buys Treasury Bills. (Wanna buy some? The government can be a little in debt to you if you do.) You can view the United States’ 2008 financial report here: http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/08frusg/08guide.pdf

4. It could be said for many, many laws in democracies, that they’re not necessarily in the interest of the People. Doesn’t change the fact that it is a law.

5. I agree – it does matter where we get our information. I look at the sites of reputable law schools and .gov for mine, when I want to look up legal things. Yours appears to be from a conspiracy-theory fringe blog with an annoying wallpaper background that also discusses UFOs and paranormal activity, and one from which pages get randomly deleted (your link leads to “page not found”).

Pazza's avatar

@laureth
What your telling me UFO’s aren’t real!.......... ;-p
The English MOD acknowledges the existance of UFO’s by the way.
they said, (summerised) ‘we don’t know what they are, but they don’t seem to pose a threat, so we’re not going to bother investigating!’, that was the basic gist of it anyway.

Statutes aren’t laws, they are ‘legislative rules of society given the force of law by the concent of the governed’. Black’s law.

You should look up Legalese and the definition of society. I’m not being funny, its actually very interesting and very enlightening.

In the end any and all information is heresay, unless you researched it for yourself, or where there at the time it happened, you can’t take anything as gospel. You can therefore only form a fully informed decision if you have all the available information. You just have to sift through all the disinformation.

Oh I forgot, shorely debt sold was debt owed? If you buy treasury bills, who do you owe the money to? seems like transferance of debt to me.

laureth's avatar

Lots of people on Fluther believe all sorts of things. I wouldn’t count moderator status on Fluther as being an expert on anything other than Fluther itself.

I don’t want to make this into an argument about UFOs, except to say that if I wanted legal information, I would go to a site that specializes in laws, not conspiracy theories. Whether or not UFOs exist as anything more than objects that are unidentified, they have very little to do with good legal advice.

If all information is hearsay, I will choose to go with the most reliable purveyor of hearsay I can find. Not all news sources are equal.

Can you tell me what the difference between “having the force of law” and “law” is?

Treasury bills are a loan to the government. It’s sort of like being the Government’s credit card. When you buy something with your Visa card, who does Visa owe the money to? It owes it to the person you’re buying from, and you owe Visa. When you buy a T-bill, you are lending the government money, and accepting that they will pay you back later, with interest according to the terms of your purchase.

Pazza's avatar

@laureth
More confusion, if you buy a treasury bill, you lend your government money, I get that so far, but do you actually give them money you have, or do they print it? also do these add up to the missing 12 odd trillion? Also, credit card companies don’t have any money to lend, its pretty much all fiat.

Having the force of law is based on a contract that you have with the government. This contract comes in the form of a Birth Cirtificate and creates a legal entity called a person, often refered to as a ‘strawman’. All statutes are applicable only to your person, which you take responsibilty for. However, for a contract to be valid, both parties entering the contract must give consent, you as a baby were not old enough to do so, so your parents did it on your behalf, the good bit is that, you can step away from that contract at any time you want because it is essentialy invalid.

This works great in priciple, and there are people who are doing it right now, tho the court system is a mine field of tricky words and protocol. Funny how they don’t teach you at school about the court system!?!

laureth's avatar

1. When you buy a treasury bill, you buy it with money that you have. Just like if you buy a loaf of bread or a pair of pants. I don’t see the confusion. But issuing T-bills is the way the government borrows money. A T-bill is an IOU.

2. So, if you don’t want to obey a law, you don’t have to? You can just say no? And nobody minds, and you and the Feds all go out for a beer? And people have tried this? I wonder how it’s working out for them!

The Court system, for very good reason, is tricky – if by “tricky” you mean “having very precise definitions and concepts.” It sounds, though, like you want to define words and concepts in some non-standard way, and then expect the legal view to fit your view. It doesn’t work that way, as people in the “I don’t want to pay income tax” cellblock learn the hard way.

One of the terms you seem to define in a non-standard way is “money.” If credit card companies didn’t have money to loan (in the form of numbers and bits, but money nonetheless), then millions of people wouldn’t be able to buy anything with them. Remember, money is valuable because we all agree it is, whether it’s gold, seashells, or pixels. It’s what you can get in exchange for it that matters.

wundayatta's avatar

Information that is acquired via the scientific method is not mere hearsay. It provides enough information so that anyone—ANYONE—can verify the results themselves. This is how non-hearsay knowledge is built. This is how trust in knowledge is built.

The website cited above that is a conspiracy theory site. The article cited contains a few facts and the rest is conjecture. The article tells a story about a meeting that was held in secret and that has never been discussed. What, the author was a fly on the wall? It’s all unsupported guesswork. There are ten cited sources, none of which is more recent than 1933.

I am very suspicious about the verity of that article. It certainly does not give me any reason to have any trust in it. @Pazza, if I were you, I’d be very suspicious of the information you find there.

As a side note, it does explain why you sound the way you do, and where your ideas come from. Just curious—how did you find that site in the first place?

Pazza's avatar

@daloon
I heard something that Woodrow Wilson was quoted as saying but couldn’t remember what it was, though the setiment in the quote was that he regreted passing the Ferderal Reserve Act, and that he now realises the FED has the ability to bring the country to its knees. Anyhoo I tried googling it quick like, and couldn’t find it, that other page popped up, and I also remembered the Jeckyll Island meeting which is cited on the page, (a hasty move I have to admit! lol).

I mean at the end of the day, the mans campaign funding didn’t come from nowhere, the whole system of election is flawed, a corporation isn’t going to give a donation without wanting something in return right? so I’m sorry but heres how it played out in my mind:

JPMorgan – ‘yo woodrow, we got this legislation we want passing’
Woodrow – ‘whats that then?’
JPMorgan – ‘well, we call it the Federal reserve Act’
Woodrow – ‘who’s we’
JPMorgan – ‘the Jekyll Island club you moron!, wonna join?’
Woodrow – ‘Maybe later, but I’ll tell you what, fund my ellection campaign, and I’ll make sure that legislation gets passed when I get into the oval oriface!’
JPMorgan – ‘Cool!’

And thus began the demise of the mighty USA. :-(

Suplimental:
‘There are ten cited sources, none of which is more recent than 1933.’
I think I’d trust something said nearer the time than something from today?

Anyhoo, nice to converse. I do like those breasts, bum, breasts???? bum…...

@laureth – Good shot! my fingers are gonna hurt now!
So what your saying is that the american government is 12 trillion in debt to the people?
Your using that word again!..... Legal is not Lawful, nor Lawful Legal.
If you don;t consent to be governed, it doesn’t have the force of Law.

Right, a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away the sith lords wanted to bring the law of the sea onto the land, Fleet or Admiralty Law, this, especially in England wasn’t going to be easy, so they created a system wereby they created joinder between human beings and a Legal entity known as a person (its fucking genius really) anyway, the crux of it is, that for a court to apply fleet law to a human being, they have to get them to take responsibility for the person (afterall, these no point in locking up a piece of paper now is there! or fining one for that matter), they call it joinder.

They have many ways of getting joinder, for instance, you get pulled over by the FED’s,
you wind the window down and they say could you step out of the car please sir, you step out of the car and bingo! joinder. Mr, Mrs Ms or Sir are all titles, human beings do not have titles, companies have titles, and so do Legal fictions, that you didn’t say I’m not a person is not relavant, the assumption is that you are the Legal fiction because you responded to a title. And thats just the tip of the iceberg.

and by tricky, I don’t mean words have specific meanings, ah well, shit actually I did, but not in English. the fact of the matter is that the LAW SOCIETY created a language called Legalese, now you’d be forgiven for thinking this is just English, but theres a twist, certain words have been changed, forinstance, must is synonymous with may, a person is not a human being, oh, and heres a good’n apply means beg, so when you have a child and register it, your actually abandoning it and begging the government to take care of it as chattel property, hense ‘must submit application for registration’.

As for the FED’s most of them are ignorant to this, no, the vast majority of them, this is why its gets sticky when they pull you over, all they know is that they must get joinder, to make anything stick. But hey, its easy for them now right!, they just fucking taser you for non-complience…....

As for judges, they know the fucking lot. But to be fair, they see nuggets coming and going through court day in an day out, so they sit there on their high horses and say, hey, if you don;t know the rules of the game its not my fault. Oh and they get paid fucking wods! Also, there is a Roman maxim, that as far as I know is still a maxim in Law today that states – ‘let he who would be deceived be deceived’. Very telling if you ask me. (fucking de-facto whores!)

As for the income tax, its still unlawfull because its unaportioned, any legislation or law for that matter that conflicts with your blessed constitution/bill of rights is invalidated by default. The fact is, as I’ve already mentioned that the income tax is a contractual obligation, if they get you to contract/joinder you have to pay.

Back to joinder and fleet Law, to make it stick, the final nail is getting into the ‘DOCK’ (keyword there!) back in the day you birthed your ship in the dock, and all goods and chattel property was turned over to the harbour master for safe keeping. Foreigners were also then under admiralty law while they stayed, this is why you stand in the dock, for if you don’t, and they can’t make you!, they can’t apply admiralty law. Once you get in the dock your consenting to be governed by admiralty Law.

As for money, I understand it all to well now my mind is open. This is where the term ‘accepted for value’ comes from (research transaction of a security interest).
Oh an buy the way, owning a beach in a country that uses seashells as currency does not a rich man make!

The only thing in this world that has real tangible worth is mans labour. Capitalism causes conflict, greed, and gives would-be tyrants the abbility to buy submission. If it wasn’t for the central banking system Hitler couldn’t have financed his invasion!, happens a lot that….....

And in any case, credit card companies bring money into existance lend it to you, and charge you for the privilege of doing something you could have saved up to do in the first place. immoral, unethical usery.

Ps. don’t take any of that shit as gospel like!

Peace out from the silly strawman.

Pazza's avatar

@daloon
Oh I forgot, about data verification, when the doctor tests you for HIV, an says sorry dude, you got it, you trust him right?, but what if you went and verified the data only to find that they don’t test you for HIV, they test you for the anti-body you immune system produces to fight the infection?

Me thinks these people are not very trustworthy.

More loaded stuff I know, I have been told before today by a works colleague that I have a strange way of looking at things. They make sense in my mind, so I appologise if they don’t seem to make much to anyone else. I think I’m a bit ‘Kurt Cobain’.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther