Unfortunately, as you can see, it shows through in virtually everything you do and it takes some will and effort to address, should you at all be interested in virtue and self improvement.

Good riddance.

Exactly what ‘arguments’ you’ve posed I don’t know, because you won’t specify, is it: the original arguments in the OP that I refuted with the fact that it would be unworkably deflationary or the non existent questions that you’ve posed in response to my original response?

Love the irony that is lost on you for claiming that I am not curious and/or lazy for not reading all diary on economics yet you chastise me for referring for you to read a book. It’s true it isn’t on the approved Libertarian reading list.

Ta ta, can’t spend anymore of my time here.

I am making a single assumption in all of this: that you didn’t independently invent the idea of “anti violence” and got this idea from the libertarian circles in which it originated, popularized by Ayn Rand.

… and there my friend, lies your problem.

Actually everything you said above shows that you actually haven’t dealt with anything of what I’m saying here.

I would also, as a courtesy, point out one more time that you haven’t actually refuted a single one of my arguments. All you did was put words in my mouth and then make up scenarios attempting to refute those words.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with you not having read any of my stuff, it’s totally up to you. I would never use the lazy “go and read book xyz by some other person” response and I actually even try to avoid doing that kind of stuff with my very OWN writings.

But what I do find annoying is that you pretend to know what my arguments are and then go on and on based upon pre conceived assumptions.

How about you try out a bit more curiosity?

What you are doing shows no curiosity at all, just the same old boring stuff that I myself used to believe in and spout out as an econ undergrad, making it sound like you actually believe that you’re adding anything new.

I always say that I can excuse one’s ignorance, but what I can absolutely not excuse it one’s laziness, for it is a deliberately chosen approach that you are fully accountable for.

It’s not a very pleasant way to try and debate with people, so you don’t need to be surprised when you turn off other people as well with that approach.

Let’s take something to its logical conclusion shall we? If you had to kill 1 person to save 100,000 would you do it? If you had to kill 1 person to save 100,000,000 would you do it? If you had to inconvenience 1 person to save 100,000,000 would you do it? While answering “no” to the first and second question may be justifiable and make for an interesting discussion about morality, it is evident that anyone answering no to the 3rd isn’t simply indifferent to morality but actively manifesting evil on the planet. As the tenants of the “Anti-Violence” position would assuredly answer “no” to all 3 of these, they are actively supporting evil.

In short, the anti-violence ideology isn’t moral philosophy, and so is supported and followed by those that believe that making moral decisions is simply too difficult. It is true that making moral decisions is hard, but it is a necessary function of being a human being. If one feels they are not up for it then they might as well give back Zeus the power to make fire, give the forbidden fruit back to the snake, and simply become a beast because that is what they want to be. Unfortunately this isn’t how a society functions or can function. I’m sure that if you have children you don’t follow your own ideology in this regard – indeed, if you did you would of course be an awful parent. Point being, is that power relations exist in society, have existed for time immemorial and are likely to exist as far as we can speculate into the future. Hierarchy and different levels of power and ability are inherent in the aggregation of large groups of people. Saying that we violence can’t be used ignores the entirety of human relations.

The tenants of classical economics are also fundamental to this Ayn Randian ideal. Please read “Debt: The first 5000 years”. Great book, that obliterates many of the central, fictional pillars of classical economics. A must read.

If any of this doesn’t apply to you, then fine. I am making a single assumption in all of this: that you didn’t independently invent the idea of “anti violence” and got this idea from the libertarian circles in which it originated, popularized by Ayn Rand. I’m gathering this information by the posts you’ve made and the things you are promoting on your website.

The moral reason why I favor a peaceful monetary system, aside from all the obvious benefits to the common man that you can pretty easily read up on here or elsewhere in the digital age, is that I believe that the initiation of violence against peaceful people is immoral.

Cheers and Happy Holidays,
EJ

As for the Austrian Quest to Prevent Inflation, for what other purpose would you be arguing in favor of a system of 100% Reserve Banking? For what other conceivable apparent benefit could there be to this system? The sole purpose of it appears to be to prevent an increase in the money supply and therefore inflation or the possibility of it. If there are any other perceived benefits to this proposed system please let me know.

The reason why I said “Austrian” is because of your obvious leanings, and the links that you have posted on the side of your site. I apologize if you don’t categorize yourself in this manner, but it is a core tenet of the Austrian and Chicago schools to see inflation as a worse evil than basically anything else, you are promoting their ideology in your writing and in your links… so…?

You said in your initial response that there is an “Austrian quest to prevent !INFLATION! at all costs” and you’re claiming I’m ignoring some old arguments that have been made and refuted a million times already. The unfortunate part about making such statements is that you’re putting words in my mouth and being a tad bit un-curious about what I’ve been saying for the past 7 years that I’ve been writing this blog.