Taxation is Theft

[Montegriffo]

Lend me a tenner.

[brewster]

Lend me a tenner.

Sure, what's your collateral?

[Montegriffo]

Lend me a tenner.

Sure, what's your collateral?

One slightly used trebuchet.

[brewster]

Lend me a tenner.

Sure, what's your collateral?

One slightly used trebuchet.

Hmmm, certainly worth a tenner, but not very liquid, or transportable. This was historically the problem, anything but land was not considered real enough and stable enough. Livestock could die, jewels could vanish, inventory could burn up, ships could sink. The latter two of course birthed the insurance industry.

[Speaker to Animals]

Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.

And yet, The Bard's doggerel aside, a functional banking system was one of the greatest weapons England and then Britain had. It allowed them to wage war on borrowed money, while the crowns of Europe had much worse credit.

Honestly I don't understand the whole "usury" thing. No one is going to lend you money for nothing. So everyone would be only able to buy or invest with cash resources, slowing the economy to a crawl. Plus no one could invest their savings or get interest, What you saved would be all there was. A static society is what you'd have, those with land would remain wealthy, those without would remain poor. Sound familiar?

Lending money with a fixed usage fee is not stealing. Lending money with compounding interests is quite literally theft. It steals from all of society. That money does not exist.

It is mathematically impossible for everybody to pay back debts with interests. Did you consider that? For just five seconds?

Back in the DCF days we had this discussion and I remember this weirdo's video making some impact on the normies.



Usury is considered stealing because it really is stealing. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all agree on this. Even mathematicians confirm it. It's a mathematical fraud.

[brewster]

And yet, The Bard's doggerel aside, a functional banking system was one of the greatest weapons England and then Britain had. It allowed them to wage war on borrowed money, while the crowns of Europe had much worse credit.

Honestly I don't understand the whole "usury" thing. No one is going to lend you money for nothing. So everyone would be only able to buy or invest with cash resources, slowing the economy to a crawl. Plus no one could invest their savings or get interest, What you saved would be all there was. A static society is what you'd have, those with land would remain wealthy, those without would remain poor. Sound familiar?

Lending money with a fixed usage fee is not stealing. Lending money with compounding interests is quite literally theft. It steals from all of society. That money does not exist.

It is mathematically impossible for everybody to pay back debts with interests. Did you consider that? For just five seconds?

Back in the DCF days we had this discussion and I remember this weirdo's video making some impact on the normies.



Usury is considered stealing because it really is stealing. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all agree on this. Even mathematicians confirm it. It's a mathematical fraud.

I couldn't take more than a couple of minutes of that nonsense. Seriously, that's profound ignorant of how money works. The zero sum view of money is what's fraudulent. In our modern economy money/value is created and destroyed all the time. We no longer use gold. When I create something of value, it has value equal to the money someone would pay for it, even though it didn't exist before I made it. I created money. If I invest in a stinker stock and lose my shirt, money is destroyed. The fallacy is when you try and say value =/= money. That would mean if I have a $1B in real estate and zero cash, I am broke.

As for the stupid ass example of everyone in a theoretical bubble borrowing the same amount, that isn't how economies work. What he doesn't address is where is that borrowed money actually coming from, outside the bubble? Well if that capital can come from outside your bubble, so can the interest to be paid, via the people using that borrowed money to create even more wealth. The example of using leverage solely for a passive asset is stupid too, money is borrowed to create wealth the way I did as described above. The poor dude he was yapping at tried to point this out with an example of investing in business, but the morn in the mustache steered I'm back to the fallacy.

[Speaker to Animals]

Uh.. yeah.. and every dollar that is created is a debt.. and every time you inflate the monetary supply, you essentially steal from all of society.

Increasing the money supply just to keep the usury system running only makes it even more evil. Printing fiat money is the equivalent of coin debasement when we had real money.

[brewster]

Uh.. yeah.. and every dollar that is created is a debt.. and every time you inflate the monetary supply, you essentially steal from all of society.

Increasing the money supply just to keep the usury system running only makes it even more evil. Printing fiat money is the equivalent of coin debasement when we had real money.

So now this isn't about banks and interest, but about money in general. Good grief. Hole up in a cave.

EDIT: I'm still trying to get my head around this. You want the government to outlaw and or regulate the loan transaction between 2 private parties? What happened to freedom of choice? Are you going to force the lender to lend at terms he doesn't want to, are you going to forbid the borrower from borrowing at terms he's OK with? We have credit cards with rates most people a few decades ago would have considered usurous, but do you see people cutting up their cards? No, they're getting a transaction they want. What happened to "the market is always right"? The distribution and circulation of capital is the heart of capitalism. Fuck with it at your peril. Even socialists don't want to mess with it, they just want to tax it.