The debate "A government which possesses too much power over it's people will inevitably become tyrannical" was started by
February 11, 2018, 6:29 pm.
19 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 5 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
lachlan2 posted 7 arguments, Slymcfly posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
Serendipity posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Slymcfly, lachlan2, historybuff, Post_it_note, emotions_suck and 14 visitors agree.
Serendipity and 4 visitors disagree.
I disagree. the statement is really quite straight forward. at a certain level of power, it becomes tyrannical. if you need government approval to go to the bathroom that is obviously tyrannical. now that is an absurdly high level of power that would never happen, but if you see power as a sliding scale where one end is absolute control and the other end is anarchy, then at some point you cross into tyranny. at what point that line is crossed depends very much on culture, but there is always a line.
The current argument is invalid. It does not have enough premises that back the conclusions. This means there are holes in the argument. What needs to be stated in the argument is what is considered tyrannical and whats not. As well what the limit that needs to be reached for a nation to be considered to have too much power.
Still this argument would be inductive for there are many possibilities of what a nation may do with power. Cause of this the argument could be seen as either false or true depending on each individuals perspective from a ethical moral stand point. Which would derive from ones society they grew up in. From my personally moral stand point i find this argument false for there is not enough premises to back the conclusion and is inductive where a society could easily be powerful but not tyrannical will always be a possibility.
I'll give you this, it would certainly stabilize our economy. However, we would have to change the value of literally everything, we would have to decide what commodity we are basing our currency on(I can't foresee an instance where it would be anything other than a precious metal), and we would have to all come to an agreement on this, or a majority Agreement. I can see this being possible during the start-up of a new government, or if the USD were to ultimately fail, but I don't see any possible way we would be able to implicate commodity-based currency without suffering a MAJOR depression during the 10-15 year adjustment period.
Can you explain what you are saying when you claim the USD to NOT be a bank note? Because as far as I'm concerned, that's EXACTLY what the USD is. it's essentially a promisary bank note...
Why do you think hard currency induces economic collapse?
Well commodity money can be anything, it's just that silver and gold evolved through the market as the best currency because they worled the best.
Yes I'm saying currency has to be backed by real hard currency. This can be done privately and the Fed and centralized banking can be abolished. Currently USD does not even fit the definiton of money (it is not a commodity and it is not a bank note).
You're just going to lead to another debate about recessions and government spending. If there was sound currency and no Federal Reserves recessions would not be dramatic to the extent they are now. Given that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression by fixing interest rates. Also for the reason that stimulus spending dosen't actually grow the economy.
That only about 5% of our currency is currently backed by? How in the world would we be able to avoid or survive an entire economical collapse, if that IS your opinion?
And you're saying that our currency should be backed by precious medals?
My argument is about real commodity currency. whether the market chooses silver or gold is irrelevant.
Nemiroff is correct, Lachlin. Your idea of gold is wildly misdirected. If you want to talk about REAL valuable medals, silver would be FAR more valuable than gold.
1. idk about them trying to ban cryptos, but you can certainly use gold or other traditional commodities no problem.
and don't you think they should fight counterfeits? counterfeits are not a seperate currency but masqarading as an existing currency. that's like accepting fake gold or diamonds... which will just make all things worthless. it's fine if you don't want to use the dollar, but don't make fake ones to pass off as the dollar.
2. gold was valuable because it was rare and shiny. it's only purpose outside of decoration is very new as a conductor and had nothing to do with its historic value. it was used in coins because it had value, not the other way around. I think your history of gold is simply wrong.
3. if foreign individuals and nations can use usd to buy gold from us, and they are not on a similar standard, they will simply swap their money for our money, swap our money for our gold. and then print more of their money. even if their money goes down from the printing, they will still have more gold, while our dollar also drops as we have less gold to equate to it.... until we have no gold at all. that's the most logical reason for the shift. your Roosevelt story may be a sideline issue, of a misrepresented issue, idk, but considering the validity of the logic of not selling off all our gold, I can't see some scheme as the primary reason for the shift. please cite this.
A few things:
1. Yes they do, counterfeit money is illegal. Governments try to ban Bitcoin but can't.
2. I don't think you understand commodity money vs government money. When we use commodities that have value, eventually one will be chosen to be the medium of exchange for easier trade and economic calculation.
Gold had value before it was used foe jewlery and luxury goods. It was also durable and easy to mint into coins. The difference with government and commodity money is that the money holds the value in itself as a commodity as well. government money has value because the state says so. A TV might be equal in price to 10 ounces of gold, but are you willing to say that A TV is equal to a peice of paper?
3. The US government left gold because they wanted to commit legal fraud and steal the gold from citizens. FDR forced all owners of gold to sell it to the state at a fixed price, and afterward artificially raised the price of gold to USD! That is theft. Franklin Roosevelt is a thief.
Why do you think a gold standard has issues with other countries? It just means foreign individuals can buy gold from the us (or tender that is exchangeable for gold) or they can chose not to.
I believe you are overestimating the Fed.
the Fed certainly has great power in manipulating the value of the dollar, but it has no power to establish it having a value nor forcing us to use it.
what gives the piece of paper value is the same thing that gives commodities value. us. we believe it is worth something so it is.
besides, are you really suggesting we tie our currency to a value when other nations do not? that would bankrupt us! I believe we were one of the last to abandon the system and that was the main reason why.
I'm talking about forming the Fed that points a gun to our heads and forces us to use peices of paper as "legal tender". When is reality USD only has value because the state says it does. Money is only real if it is commodity money, that holds the value in its use. Like gold, silver, bitcoin, ripple, or even bags of weed.
This gives the government too much power because it can see around with exchange rates, screw around with interest rates, have unlimited spending power to print more USD (which depreciates our savings and makes us poorer), and print more USD to finance the debt.
Medium of exchange is something that can be created by the market process, not by coercion.
I'm not saying that I necessarily diagree with you. Just asking for clarity.
Lachlan, can you elaborate on that please? I believe the federal government, through the federal reserve, for the most part, has always monopolized currency up until recently with BitCoin. Are you referring to the market, and how it is out of the government's hands? Because you would be SHOCKED as to how much insider trading happens, connected to the government passing legislature. This has been well-known for a long time. Either way, which are you referring to? Government controlling WHERE our currency goes? Or government controlling what kind of currency we use?
Giving the government the power to hold a monopoly on currency is too much power.
I believe too much power, is when they start giving rights to minority groups that DIRECTLY impedes the rights of majority groups. For example, FORCING people, by law, to use people's preferred pronouns. You're giving the minority group(trans community), rights that directly impede on the majority's right to free speech. All speech is protected as long as it doesn't "encite violence", and I think that's an amendment we should always have.
Freedom of the press being taken away would be HUGE, because that would be our first step toward being a communist reegime like Russia, where what you watch on TV and on the internet is controlled by the government. That's obviously something that we can't allow.
The second amendment may be the biggest one. If we were to do away with the 2nd amendment, and American citizens no longer had the right to bear arms, it would only be a matter of time before the government becomes fully militarized, rendering us helpless.
The fact of the matter is this. Whether it's Democrats or Republicans, there will always be politicians in government who are trying to gain more power over the people. That is why we need to make sure that we fight back at ANY sign of the government overstepping it's bounds. Which is why the FISA surveillance of Carter Page is so concerning to me. If it's THAT easy for the government to spy on an American citizen, we've got some serious holes in our system that need to be fixed, and the individuals who abused their power need to be thrown in prison. We, the people, need to re-unite, Democrats and Republicans, and make sure that we don't allow the government to get a strangle-hold on any more control. Because once you give it to them, there's no way we can get it back, guys. This is something that is extremely important to me, being a constitutional libertarian.
What would be too much government power in your opinion historybuff?
limiting press freedom is too much power.
providing healthcare may or not be too much, but it is not a step on the path to tyranny.
probably. but I get the feeling we differ wildly on the defininition of too much power.