"You can't not do something today because of what a future group might do. In fact the Fed originally had only one mission, to maintain stable currency value."

And the failure of that system I think illustrates my point effectively. The Fed received a new mandate. Choosing a system that isn't as likely to revert and put us back in this mess is not a foolish option.

Leaving the government in charge of money, even with a more sensible policy at the moment is a weaker choice.

This is the problem with Anarchists. They don't want the government to do anything, even if it is in the Constitution. If they were Constitutionalists they would understand.

The gold standard was just a system of exchange. It wasn't necessarily about gold. It was about preventing anyone from manipulating the supply of paper money. If someone expanded the supply of paper money then people would turn in all heir paper money for gold. This is why money used to say exchangeable for gold on demand, or silver later.

Did anyone notice that the value of the dollar collapsed when we came off the gold standard? I think there may be a correlation there...

So you repeal the second mandate because it didn't work. We repealed Prohibition. You don't reject the massive successes of the system because of failures. The White House and government are not in charge of money now. You've read history of the Fed Damian. You know the White House and Fed often disagree vehemently on monetary policy.

The governors of the fed are private bankers. They simply serve on the Fed board. Bernanke and I think two others are officially bureaucrats without a job in a private bank while they are on the board.

"This is the problem with Anarchists. They don't want the government to do anything, even if it is in the Constitution. If they were Constitutionalists they would understand."

Again. I'm not American. I have no attachment to your constitution, nor do the ideas of the men who drafted in necessarily have to line up with the present reality. I do believe the government should step out of some of the roles that is was granted by your constitution. And that perhaps it should be reformed such that the government is not enforcing a monopoly.

When Nixon took us off the gold standard the value of the dollar did drop significantly. The economic policies of the 1970's were horrendous. Volcker began stabilizing the dollar in 1979 under Carter and the dollar's value was outstanding vs other floating currencies for the next twenty years.

Hear! Hear! Damian. I'm not an anarchist, but government monopolies are just as destructive as private monopolies.

Let us go back to the start of this thread and discuss each point.

1) Eliminate all federal taxes, including, but not limited to, those on income and corporations. Replace with a tariff system on foreign imports.

2) Eliminate all federal subsidies, including, but not limited to, those to corporations, as well as, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Food stamps.

3) Eliminate the bureaucracies, including, but not limited to, the NSA, and the TSA.

4) Control inflation by putting a moratorium on printing money. [Until a Gold Standard is put into place, as I said.]

5) Cut $2 Trillion in government spending. This can be achieved through the things mentioned above, and by eliminating things like the National Parks and other ridiculous public works projects. End all pork barrel spending.

"They don't want the government to do anything, even if it is in the Constitution"
They don't want or even NEED a government in the first place!
Also, monopolies wouldn't exist in a free market economy, all monopolies that currently exist today do so through government laws and favours.

Once again, Anarchy usually leads to totalitarianism, which is the opposite of what we all want. A Sbyvl-dominated government would be limited and constitutional, but not Anarchy. And that is where we differ.

Have you ever heard of the Articles of Confederation?

You're just like a dirty statist socialist pig, jumping to those conclusion "Anarchy usually leads to totalitarianism"
"USUALLY LEADS"
How the fuck would you know? Was there ever an anarchist society in modern times? Are you an expert on human psychology? Do you, and only you know whats best for everyone's lives? I think people manage their lives the best, they dont need some prick to order them around

"Hear! Hear! Damian. I'm not an anarchist, but government monopolies are just as destructive as private monopolies."

This is what I don't understand. If you acknowledge the Fed to be a government sponsored monopoly. (Perhaps this is our disagreement) Then why are you opposed to altering the system. Yes the Fed it is largely a private company, but if congress leans on them enough they print, or led them more money, because congress gave them the right to print money and can take it away.

And yes the Fed and Congress often disagree. Which is why I said earlier, the currency would be more stable if the Fed wasn't forced to answer to congress in any way.

To go back to Sbyvl's points.
1) Agree to eliminating taxes... Sort of... I'm still coming to terms with how the government should fund itself, preferably without violence.

I think tariffs are something to consider, but they are a dangerous option, and one that I would prefer to avoid.

2) Fine. I would slowly phase out the policies to prevent short term suffering. But they should go, it would encourage more responsible personal finance.

3) Agreed, let private companies take over the job of the TSA.

4) Disagree, have congress step out and let the Fed do it, or open the market to private modes of exchange. I have no strong feelings for or against the gold standard.

5) Cutting government spending is good. Let private businesses take over the roles the government cedes.

@ILN:

1. French Revolution
2. Spain 1936

Use common sense. If there is no government, of course someone will come along and take over. It's human nature, you idiot.

Your idiotic policies to impose tariffs would ruin foreign trade. Many items would first of all become inaccessible, the industries would not be competitive, because why should they, they don't fear imports that are of better quality and better price. Also, I would much rather pay to have a plastics factory in China so those communist assholes can pollute their air, their water, than have one in the industrialized, civilized world. Then, after you cripple the countries import market, make many quality and cheap goods inaccessible, you plan to completely destroy the export market by not printing money, making US goods more expensive to other countries, and making people not spend their money.

@Damian: Tariffs are not dangerous, as I outlined in the first few pages.
I still don't know why you want bureaucrats running our currency.

I would rather move to africa and be a goat herder than live in your shithole dystopia

@ILN: That is a great incentive to start manufacturing things here. As soon as we get rid of the corporate and income taxes, businesses will flock to this country.

I stopped reading at "pollute"

Good, no one is going to miss you.

well if you would like to live in a newyork, buffalo, detroit, washington, pittsburg etc that looks like this, i suppose you reserve some tickets to Beijing, im sure you'll enjoy it there

http://adventuresaroundasia.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/china_pollution_ap971430398958_620x350.jpg

I have no idea what that meant.

"I still don't know why you want bureaucrats running our currency."
I don't. That's the point. I want a business running your currency. Which if you free the Fed from government influence is what it will be. Or if you spilt it up and sell it. Either way.

"Tariffs are not dangerous, as I outlined in the first few pages."
I did not find your argument compelling then or now.

Tariffs are dangerous in our increasing globalized society, any restriction on trade is because it encourages businesses to find venues without restricted trade. Furthermore, if businesses don't leave, and you succeed in shifting manufacturing back to the US. The cost for good will go up, because US labour costs more than Chinese labour. And your tariffs to protect US businesses with drive up the costs of the Chinese products to match the price of the American ones, not the other way around. This leads to a net increase in costs for the consumer.

people like you have this superiority complex that makes them think they are better at administrating other peoples lives better, cultivated from spending too many hours in your moms basement

Damian is right about tarrifs

Ok, I am going to answer these two points, hear your responses, and go to bed for tonight.

@Damian.
1. That is your problem.
2. You don't understand the free market at all.

@ILN
100% Inaccurate.

No he isn't.

How else would you fund the government?

Libtard.