Yes, they are. Can you say 'taxes'?
Imposed by a gun.
Don't try to change the subject.
I'm not, taxes are a political transaction, I must pay them whether or not I demand the service or disservice I receive for them -- taxes are not bound by supply and demand.
It's one of the defining characteristics that allow a government to be a economic factor in the economic system
It is the defining excuse for the FEDERAL government to interfere with the economic system.
Can you say 'mint money'? Can you say 'federal reserve'?
Can you say government fiat?
Can you say fucked up non-working economy if there isn't some standardization of monetary systems? I can see it now if folks like you get your way.
Try studying the free banking era of the Mid 1800's, or the international exchange markets.
When I go to Louisiana I'll need a whole new currency that I can't trade my Texas money for.
Why can't you trade your Texas money? Who is to prevent you? Who is to prevent other from meeting the exchange demand? Who it so prevent people from accepting it in trade? Clearly with the digitization of money, multiple currencies are not a problem.
Can you say 'FDIC'?
Can you say banking regulation at the point of a gun?
Don't change the subject (again).
I'm not, the gun is the defining characteristic that makes it political and not economic.
The Soviet Union is a prime recent example.
How?
Self-destructed command economy that created prices by fiat instead of obeying market economics.
British Mercantilism.
How?
Self-destructed empire (starting with our war of independence) by creating artificial trade barriers between the colonies to reap artificial profits at the colonies expense (which was really at the heart of the revolution, not taxation nor representation).
Economics *is* human behaviour
Let's expand the definition to the point it has no meaning. No thank you. Economics is production and trade; human behavior affects trade, it is not economics.
If you are trying to extend economics to the extent of trying to predict the micro-economic actions of individuals then you don't understand macro or micro economics very well.
You can predict the actions of groups of individuals if you understand the nature of individuals. Predicting an individual is left to the soothsayers.
No, the fundamental law of economics is greed/desire/want/etc.
Okay, you take your laws of greed/want/desire and figure out how to sustain life.
Self-defence and self-sufficiency. The first requires brute force and the second requires some mechanism of trade.
No, self-sufficiency by its definition means you are...well...sufficient by yourself. If you require trade, you are no longer self-sufficient.
symbol is money.
Money either has intrinsic value, or it is a symbol and debt against something held of value, or it is a debt on the future acquisition of value produced by someone else -- i.e. future productivity.
First, the money supply was created by a popular vote, not a government fiat
Oh, please do tell when/where this popular vote took place. We've moved from intrinsic value currency to a currency representing hard value (gold) to something that represents nothing more than faith of government, and whose supply is controlled by fiat of a *private* institution -- the Federal Reserve Board.
discussion? Privacy (as opposed to secrecy) is about discretionary disclosure of information.
Discretion by you of the disclosure by you of information about you. Make sense? The other type of privacy, somehow preventing other people from disclosing information about you by means other than mutual agreement is privacy of the statist type.
There is an economic cost of doing so, and an economic benefit.
The government could tap my phone and there would be no economic impact.
No cost, eh? I suggest you take a look at the congressional allocations for FBI wiretapping capabilities.
No, regulation does not automaticaly imply force.
Correct -- in fact the only regulations by private individuals/entities that *do* have force behind them is that of the custodian/dependent relationship, and they are limited. But find a government regulation that does not have the confiscation of your property (by force) and/or incarceration of your person (by force) as the absolute finality to non-compliance. They are few.
Yeah, so. I don't believe this is relevant since we all agree on this.
Oh, I forgot if you agree it irrelevant because you are simply being entirely combative.
I got news for you dude, I catch you in my truck after dark or running down the street with my property I'm perfectly within my rights to initiate force.
But you are not the initiator, you are reacting to my initiation of a force (or derivative), in this case trespass and theft.
You mean in an insiteful manner. You aren't talking about reacting to something you're veiled comment is
No, force in reaction to force. That is plainly simple.
You have absolutely *no* freedom to use it reactionary against government (which is in the face of the 4th).
Brain fart, the 2nd. The right to bears arms has historically implied the right to bear arms in defense against a despot. Matt