socred

It would always be up to the jury to decide whether the evidence was so overwhelming that the sentence warranted the death penalty. The fact that the death penalty is available does not mean that everyone convicted of murder would receive it. That does not mean that some innocent person might not accidently be sentenced to death. Innocent people die all the time, it's a shame, but a fact of life. What is more disturbing is that people like yourself defend keeping murderers alive by claiming that there is a remote chance that some innocent person might receive the death sentence. The chances that an innocent man would receive the death sentence would be very remote, since the jury would most likely not hand down that sentence if there wasn't an almost absolute certainty that the person actually committed the crime.

Don't feel sorry for me, for I am very happy with my life. The "tongue in cheek" was inappropriate, since you were comparing murderers to people who take too many items into an express line. While the latter is annoying, the former is heinous.

Money = debt. All money is created as a debt. If there were no debt, there would be no money.

Stephen Harper was not in my riding, so I had no opportunity to vote for him. Personally, I feel that ballot box democracy is a sham. However; in the last federal election I voted for someone in the Canadian Action Party.

If you don't understand the difference between someone who takes someone else's life, and someone who enters the express line with more than 10 items, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Interesting that you lump me into something that I don't know anything about. As far as I'm concerned ALL drugs should be decriminalized. The government has no right to tell you what substances you can put into your body. Most laws should be abolished. Lawyers become politicians and write laws in order to promote the "legal industry". And the laws that remain should be laws prohibiting things like murder, theft etc..........., and the government should crack down on people who commit those crimes. As far as I'm concerned, first degree murder should be punishable by death. Why should the taxpayers pay approximately $40,000- $50,000 per year to keep someone like Picton alive? Once he's found guilty, they should take him out back and death by firing squad, which would cost the taxpayer a few dollars. His life isn't even worth that. Children who commit adult crimes like murder should be tried as an adult, and if found guilty of first degree murder, they should be killed as well. Convicted felons do not have rights. Once you've taken the rights away from someone else, you forfeit your rights.

Just like a good little Nazi or Communist? If the government passes laws that it's our duty to kill Jews, then "who are we to argue"? After all, the government knows what's best for us

Of course there is an attempt to silence all debate on this subject. That does not mean that what Irving said was true. There's a group of people who still believe the earth is flat. Should they be arrested as well? Why don't we just get the JDL and the ADL to tell us what the truth is, and we will arrest anyone who disagrees with them? Sounds like a solid plan to me!

That is exactly why we are forced into an ever increasing consumption. I would not call it "consumerism", but "producerism". Because we are forced to engage in production in order to obtain an income, and because prices rise faster than incomes in a modern productive economy, we are forced to engage in production for its own sake in order to obtain incomes. This of course leads to a massive amount of advertising designed to get us to believe that the products which have been produced are "necessary" or "desired". This leads to an inflation of prices on goods we do need as productive capacity is diverted to the growing amount of luxury goods produced. The one thing the banking system will never let us consume is leisure, which should be available to us all in increasing amounts as technology replaces labour in the productive process via increases in productivity. An extreme example I always give is to imagine a world where perpetual motion machines did all the work. In such a world, we'd all starve to death, because nobody would have any income. Although such a world is a long way away, technology is moving us towards this ideal with every advance that reduces the amount of labour necessary to produce a unit output. Instead of being able to consume more leisure with advances in technology, we are merely enabled to produce more goods and services, which means that an ever increasing amount of our time is devoted to trying to convince people that we need to consume more (i.e. advertising). Not only is this destructive to our planet, it is spiritually destructive as well.

I'm not sure if you're referring to the synopsis, or the article on A+B which starts the thread. Unfortunately, the thread itself has be "edited" by the management of this community. The name has been changed (the original article is not a synopsis of Social Credit but merely a brief discussion of the A+B theorem, and another seperate thread which was started which is a synopsis, has merely been placed as a post in this thread). So I must ask first off, are you referring to the first post in this thread, or are you referring to post # 58 which is actually the synopsis of Social Credit? I'm certainly interested in anyone's opinion. The methods are very dissimilar, so I'm not sure the analogy is correct. One of the consequences of the accounting flaw discovered in his A+B theorem is war. This is because there is never sufficient incomes disbursed by companies to allow individuals to purchase what they have already produced. There are several policies enacted by governments and banks to alleviate this problem: excess capital development, a favorable balance of trade, and military expenditure through the use of deficit financing. The latter two policies tend to lead to war, since all countries cannot obtain a favorable balance of trade simultaneously (resulting in a trade war, which ultimately can result in real war), and military expenditure (including expenditure on the building of armaments) leads to massive inventory accumulations unless they are used. If the armaments begin to pile up, the government has a much harder task of convincing the public of the necessity of further purchases. The reason these policies are pursued is that they distribute income without increasing the amount of consumer goods on the market. People do not consume capital (although capital will eventually become a consumer good, but this is delayed through time), a favorable balance of trade means that the country is disposing of excess production, and people do not consume armaments. However; capital goods do eventually become consumer goods, and the cost of the capital eventually shows up in the cost of consumer goods, a favorable balance of trade cannot be pursued by all countries simulataneously and deficit financing eventually has to be recovered in increased taxes. These policies are "bandaid" solutions and unsustainable. The only sustainable solution is the policy recommendations of Douglas. Poor business decisions would lead to increased prices, or poorer quality products, and people would tend not to buy those products. If firms were unable to recoup their costs of production through prices, they would go out of business. The policy recommendations by Douglas were "macroeconomic" not "microeconomic". People would decide what they wanted. I will quote from the summary section of the synopsis: "The policy of production is so to be removed from the banking institutions, the government and industry. Social Credit envisages an “aristocracy of producers, serving and accredited by a democracy of consumers.” (C. H. Douglas) The true purpose of production is consumption and production must serve the genuine, freely expressed interests of consumers. " The whole structure of the current banking system is unstable. This is because the ability of commercial banks to create money is dependent on their reserves. The banking system is based upon the amount of reserves the central bank creates. It is a "pyramid" scheme, and inherently unstable. In a Social Credit system, money would be based upon the assets of the nation. Douglas proposed a hypothetical balance sheet for Great Britain which is reproduced below: "Great Britain Limited Assets: (Population. Education Morale) i.e. Human potential Policy Organization Natural Resources Developed Power Plant (Railways, Buildings, Tools, etc.) Public Services Goodwill (Tradition, reputation etc.) Work in Progress Consumable Goods Liabilities: National Debt Bankers (Potential creators of effective demand) Insurance Companies (Mortgage and Bondholders) Cash at Call Taxation for Public Services" A dividend and a price rebate. Money does not have intrinsic value (unless you're a collector). Therefore, money is not a commodity. Money is a means of distribution of production. Money's value, with the minute exception noted above, is solely dependent on the goods and services which it can command. What people value is goods and services. If there were no goods and services, money would cease to have value. You cannot eat money, you cannot live in money - money is a means to an end. Social Credit is not a form of idealism. What people choose to do with their new found freedom is up to them. If people choose to use their time for evil purposes, that is what will be the outcome. However; it is my belief that people do many of the evil things they do out of fear of economic security. In a Social Credit system, we would gain the economic security which advances in technology has provided. The economics of scarcity no longer apply to the modern economy. We live in a world of abundance. Firms don't go out of business because they don't have any stock on the shelves: they go out of business because they have too much stock on the shelves. The banking system has created an artificial scarcity by making money "scarce", and leading us to believe that money is "scarce". The only thing that is not scarce is money. Most money is simply a number in a bank account. This would be like saying numbers are "scarce". Labour can be scarce, raw materials can be scarce, equipment and plant can be scarce, but money is never scarce. This artificial scarcity imposed upon us is to keep us in fear. Fear leads people to do evil things. Social Credit is not a "perfect society". Men will always be men, with all their imperfections. Social Credit merely gives men the freedom to be men, and it is my belief, and Douglas's belief as well, that man is generally good, and given the freedom to be good, good things will accrue. That does not mean that there aren't bad men, but that will never change.

Even if he denied the holocaust (which I believe is factually incorrect, I think he just denied the numbers), does this mean he deserves to be in jail? If someone promotes Nazism, do they deserve to be in jail?

This is the fallacy known as "begging the question". First they have to have something to vote "for". If people feel that their only choice is between gonorrhea and syphillis, they may choose to stay home. When William Aberhart presented a real alternative to the existing established political parties in the province, the Social Credit Party was elected in large part due to the highest voter turnout ever. Every one of these political parties were talking change, but none of them acutally offered it. There will never be real democracy until there is economic democracy. Ballot box democracy is a sham. As C.H. Douglas once said, ""The individual voter must be made individually responsible, not collectively taxable, for his vote." ("Realistic Consitutionalism")

That is true, but why are people put in jail for debating the numbers?

How is creating an incentive to spend rather than save "bad" for Canada? "The persistence of the idea that monetary saving has a physical counterpart in physical accumulation will no doubt exercise the attention of historians of the present period. Since money is normally distributable only through the agency of wages, salaries and dividends, it being assumed that the interest on Government loans is provided by taxation, the whole of these wages, salaries and dividends must have appeared in the cost, and consequently in the price of articles produced. It does not appear to need any elaborate demonstration to see that any saving of these wages , salaries and dividends means that a proportion of the goods in the prices of which they appear must remain unsold within the credit area in which they are produced and are therefore, in the economic sense wasted. The investment of the funds so saved means the reappearance of the same sum of money in a fresh set of prices, so that on each occasion that a given sum of money is reinvested, a fresh set of price values is created without the creation of fresh purchasing power." (C.H. Douglas, evidence submitted before the MacMillan Committe on Finance and Industry reprined in The Monopoly of Credit 4th edition page 143-144)

Both on issues relationg to the last federal budget: Tax Free Savings Accounts - TFSAs Budget Day 2008!, What do you think will be in it? Should be in it? Both threads on Canada and Afghanistan: NATO in Afganistan- the other aproach NATO, Afghanistan & Canada Issues relating to whites and immigration Do you think Canada should try to maintain an 80% white majority? What % of non-whites are assimilated into Canadian culture?, 1st generation, 2nd generation, whatever This is just a cursory glance, of course I could go back and I'm sure I could dig out lots of threads to keep you busy. I do not think this decision was applied fairly.

The thread was deleted, just not the post. Two seperate threads were needed, because they were two seperate topics, as I explained to you. There are many threads in this forum which are similar topics, do you want me to point them all out so you can combine them? Or is this a vendetta by JBG because he didn't like my opinions in another thread? Is there somewhere else I can appeal this?

Why was my thread on Social Credit deleted. Charles Anthony asked me to explain the difference between the thread on Social Credit and the one I had started earlier on Douglas's A+B theorem. I explained that one was specific to his A+B theorem; whereas the newer thread was an introduction to the entire topic of Social Credit. However; Charles Anthony deleted the old thread. Am I only allowed one thread on Social Credit? It seems to me that there are lots of threads that have similar topics, but they aren't deleted. I was wondering why my thread was deleted?

These threads haven't been merged, the other was deleted. Why was it deleted?

That is a thread specifically about Douglas's A+B theorem and monetary reform. This thread is a brief synopsis of Social Credit from Douglas's writings, to the political history, to political theory, economic theory, critics to the A+B theorem and the Social Credit rebuttal, literary figures in Social Credit and philosophy. This is a much more broad description of Social Credit than the topic you link.

1st, I just wrote that in collaboration with someone else.

Politicians are always willing to spend your money, but I don't see any substantial difference between any of the political parties.

Why would you want people to "consume later"? What benefit to the economy is it if people "consume later"? This of course means that the goods and services which the people created remain unsold, since the income disbursed to people through the production process is costed into the goods and services. If the same people stop spending their income, then those costs cannot be defrayed. From an economic sense, this means that many of the goods and services that were created with the money that is now "saved" will be wasted.

Rational about what?

"The persistence of the idea that monetary saving has a physical counterpart in physical accumulation will no doubt exercise the attention of historians of the present period. Since money is normally distributable only through the agency of wages, salaries and dividends, it being assumed that the interest on Government loans is provided by taxation, the whole of these wages, salaries and dividends must have appeared in the cost, and consequently in the price of articles produced. It does not appear to need any elaborate demonstration to see that any saving of these wages , salaries and dividends means that a proportion of the goods in the prices of which they appear must remain unsold within the credit area in which they are produced and are therefore, in the economic sense wasted. The investment of the funds so saved means the reappearance of the same sum of money in a fresh set of prices, so that on each occasion that a given sum of money is reinvested, a fresh set of price values is created without the creation of fresh purchasing power." (C.H. Douglas, evidence submitted before the MacMillan Committe on Finance and Industry reprined in The Monopoly of Credit 4th edition page 143-144)

This has nothing to do with "liberalism", but merely the deterministic philosophy of materialism, which many libertarians themselves hold. Determinism leads to the belief that all actions result in a reaction whereby the concept of "free will" is negated. "Objecitivists" erroneously argue that free will itself is an identity, but in so doing, deny the very freedom needed in order for free will to assert its freedom. Freedom is a contradiction, which is exactly what we should expect to find since reason is deterministic. Materialistic philosophy leads to the psychology of "excuses". Johnny didn't rape and kill the neighbor because he "chose" to act in an immoral fashion, he raped and killed the neighbor because he was depressed, suffered from generalized anxiety disorder, and ADD. Because he had these "mental illnesses", they "caused" him to rape and kill his neighbor. This is a battle that needs to be waged on the philosophical level, for those that deny free will also deny the existence of morality. If the concept of morality is negated, what is the meaning of justice? Is it any wonder in the materialistic age we have generations of people who do not understand the meaning of morality?