The Permission Of Individualism

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

The philosophy of individualism is inherently isolationist which consequently teaches man to distance himself from the unfortunate plight of another man for fear it threaten the pursuit of his own happiness and fruition; and to accommodate this rationality without conflict, the unfortunate man is placed in ridiculed assumption that his plight is solely the responsibility of his own hand.

Institutions of finance are better served when man insists on distancing himself from his fellow-man so to better preserve his self-interest of pursuing social stability through accruing debt for no other purpose than to achieve position of ownership alleviated from debt, thereby condemning the individual unto the sole responsibility for his degree of ineptitude in financial liberation, and declaring gratitude for the inequitable lending for the undue extended privilege of this at-interest indenture for the endeavor of an invested liberty which will never mature its trusted dividend.

2

Perhaps financial institutions would actually be better off if wealth were shared. If moneys at the top end of the scale [e.g. the 1% with 47% of the wealth] were somewhat socialised, waste would be reduced and access to such wealth gained.
There are individuals with 50mil homes used to set against tax, or a collection of art and the like there as tokens of ones ‘worth’ and social standing, its perhaps money just sitting there [apart from when exchanged, sold]. Tbh I don’t know much about how things work at the top, but one would think there to be better ways of using wealth. I have worked on money holes in construction and at the high end money flows like water down the drain ~ compared to other potential uses.

All that aside, the problem with wealth redistribution is that the worth of housing simply goes way up relatively so little is gained. If say the wealth of that top 1% were redistributed, one would think that potentially the wealth of the bottom 70% with 7% of wealth could virtually double, alas value would simply change.

As the main expense in ones life I think housing prices should be controlled, then redistribution could have a greater effect and less redistribution would be required to attain the desired results [increase in wealth for that lower 70%].

I don’t buy the idea that one can charge as much as one can get for a product or possession in all cases. There are better ways for money to be spent if controls were in place, I mean that if one product takes a large slice of the pie that slice is not available to others.

3

I don’t believe wealth distribution is the answer.
The main point of the consideration is to show how recursively indentured an individual becomes in a governing system which is individualist, such as America, when every individual must pursue their endeavor of liberty through one centralized institutional infrastructure at lent interest to even begin the venture.

In principle, the consideration is a remark on what the gates of liberty are, and that lent interest for the access to, not the gates, but the road to the gates of liberty is an endless treadmill which serves no individual the liberty ascribed - not even the proverbial, “1%”.

4

What’s the answer in your opinion?

5

Education reformation
Medical reformation
Banking reformation

The first two: I have not yet completed the write-up.
The last:
I have listed at sites.google.com/site/21century … formation/

Which I have cited in another thread, but for consistency of discourse, states:

6

Agreed. Maybe add insurance reforms too ~ especially in medical where it’s a major cost.

I thought the federal reserve was privately owned, or the money is. it’s a bit confusing because the bank of England is state owned yet 97% of the money is privately owned. I don’t understand it too well but I thought the national debt was composed of private investors and all pounds [£] were printed as a loan to the govt who pays the interest [from income tax etc] in order to repay said investors. Then that ‘the deficit’ is the amount of that interest payment which govt is unable to pay with its tax receipts?

.

7

There’s allot of commotion over the idea of the Federal Reserve System because many people think the Federal Reserve is one giant bank somewhere (as was the case of the first and second bank of the United States) and that it is somehow completely isolated from the private economic infrastructure.

That’s not how the Federal Reserve System works.
People then find out that Federal Reserve Banks (there are currently 12) are numerous and govern the Member banks (credit unions, state banks, etc…) of the Federal Reserve System and are the primary institutions of the Federal Reserve System. The 12 Federal Reserve Banks are NOT exclusively privately owned organizations; they are organized and ran using the private model.
The Member Banks, of which they govern in district, ARE privately owned (credit unions, etc…)and these Members are those which have met application to the Federal Reserve Membership.

Their money is the Federal Reserve Fund; not to be confused with the National Treasury Fund.
When the National Treasury wishes to draft more funds, it turns to the Federal Reserve System - where it holds an account - and drafts from there.

This is usually where people become angry because you essentially have the United States Treasury depending on the money lending of pseudo-private institutions.

However, that would not be entirely accurate, as the Member banks are Federally regulated by the government through the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; as well, the 12 Federal Banks are regulated entirely differently and setup as an extension of the government.
These are representatives of the Federal Government, and appointed by the President of the United States.

Which means; the issue, if any, with the Federal Reserve System would not be between private citizens or identities with who interest is received through, but would be an issue of corruption within the Presidential and Board of Governors staff.

There is no real condition of threat from this part of our institution beyond that which central banking inherently implies in existing at all.

And this governance is more rigid, and restrictive in banking tolerances than is found in the Chapter 2 descriptions and allotments (National Banks).
Specifically this is the case, due to the essential protection of the Federal Reserve System’s relationship with the United States Treasury (left hand handing the right hand money at interest, and then handing most of the interest earnings made total [not just from the Treasury’s loans] back to the right hand).

And as just mentioned in the parenthetical above, the Federal Reserve System actually makes money for the United States Treasury.
The large portion of interest earned off of the Federal Reserve System is deposited into the United States Treasury.

So that dramatic conspiracy is a bit less so than it can be imagined to be due to the nature of complexity involved in the infrastructure of the Federal Reserve System.

But if you do business on the corporate level; this is pretty common.
For instance, the company I work for made a smaller company that specializes in billing technologies.
We then pay that company to do our billing IT.
That same small company is also a subsidy of our larger company and offers its billing IT to other clients (just as the Federal Reserve System offers).
As such, the parent company with which I work for, though paying the child company for the services, actually makes back more than they are spending to that child company for the services.

The same thing is taking affect between the Federal Reserve System and the United States Treasury.

That whole printed money at interest inherently bit would be a problem IF the Federal Reserve Banks didn’t return a large chunk of their interest earnings TO the United States Treasury.

8

Thanks for your patience in explaining all of this to me jayson. :slight_smile:

Still sounds largely private to me though yes its more disparate than I had envisioned.

Ah I see, this is the part where I’d assumed the national debt to be private, and taking money from the people via the govt [taxation]. Historically the nat-debt was an amount of money invested in the nation by private investors, it forged the british and dutch empires. This is what I meant by stating that the ‘money was private’, income tax was created as a means to pay back the interest of those investors money. I assume that’s still the case, no? this doesn’t sound like a left hand handing money to the right, it sounds like the rich investors taking tax payers money. that’s not necessarily a bad thing as that wealth creates the jobs we earn our money from to begin with, but it does seam to cause stresses for businesses e.g. where inflation rises to cope with nat-debt interest but wages and prices take time to catch up. Figuratively speaking I see the national debt as the gifting hands in times of prosperity, and ones which turn inwards and throttle us when times are hard [same thing on a smaller scale for businesses that arent profitable to the right degree to keep up].

When people use the term ‘capitalism’ this centralisation of wealth is what I think of. When they say it gives us freedom I remember the peasant revolt which occurred long before such mechanisms or even banks were in place. Freedom and liberty has long been fought for in both our histories.

What do the investors get out of it then ~ if not a return via a portion of the interest?
It remains a centralisation of money, no? worse it now sounds like govt is simply a part/function of that system and represents them rather than us.

Yours,
Paranoid anarchist lol

9

Here’s the trick.

Firstly, the portion of interest that is retained by the banks is still a good chunk of money.
It’s just that the majority goes to the Treasury.

Now, the Shareholders of a Member banks (of the Federal Reserve System), for example, are the members (common people) of the bank.
The people banking at the bank, are the holders of the shares of the banks.

That doesn’t mean they just up and control them, but they do retain the rights of the shareholder.

National Bank?
Nope.

Now, the only way that I would say that this is a poor option - removing National Banks and making all banks part of the Federal Reserve System as one class or another of Chapter 3 banks - would be if Chapter 2 and 3 were both wiped out and the only debt allowed was returned to that which was between an identified citizen and an identified citizen specifically.

That’s not going to happen.

So, until Armageddon gives us a reset button, the idea here is to put the banks under the strict government ruling, and…the part that is important to pay attention to is the mention of amendments to Title 12, Sec. 341and to Title 1, Sec. 1.

This means the rights of banks and financial institutions (including all corporations actually, but that’s not directly the point here) are no longer represented by the name of the institution itself, but instead linked directly to one specific individual or panel of representative individuals who’s natural citizen rights are the retainer of the rights of the institution and equal to in identity.

Meaning, you CAN put the company in jail, because the company would be equal to, “Bob A.”, or “Joe X., Mark Y., and John Z.”

10

Sounds like a good step forwards!

Do you agree its all a mechanism for centralisation though, does it in effect deliver tax moneys to investors [that 1% perhaps?]? Seams a bit inverted robin hood initially at least.

11

No, Tax money doesn’t ride into the FRS that way…I’m kind of curious how you are seeing it as though it does?
Are you referring to the dividends on the Treasury accounts?

12

I saw a documentary about the british empire and how it was built, on it they said that income tax was devised to repay investors in the debt. Then I read that income tax arrived in america in the fed reserve act 1911 [I think that’s the date], and I assumed it was for the same reason ~ because you get posters talking about it that way on some forums. No one seams to understand how it all works inc me lol.

13

Income tax doesn’t filter that way at all.
Like I said; a large portion of the confusion comes out of the situations of how the organization is setup.

The income tax, at first, didn’t hit the vast majority of Americans - btw.
Most, in 1930’s, were far too poor to be eligible to even pay taxes.
Income tax (adjustment) actually comes along in that act in league with the Social Security Act.

And this makes sense. You have a ton of unemployed, unhealthy, poor, and unfed, people stretching over a very large portion of the nation.
So you establish a health system of social security.
Now how do you pay for this?
And too, how do you recover all of these crashed and burned out banks that toppled over independently of each other with no other institutions to lean onto for help; and thereby causing the Depression in the first place?

You create a central banking system which backs the banking of the land.

Now income tax arrives (I’ll circle back around, because it doesn’t really arrive here, but I’ll explain below) as a means of paying for that Social Security and a means of trying to apply monetary flow into the government to afford these Federal systems which were completely lacking previously and now seen as necessary to prevent such a state of poverty from existing again.

And, like I said, most people weren’t making enough to pay taxes then.
Most of the money came from the equivalent of what people today would call the, “1%”.

Arrival of income tax.
Income tax was used in the United States prior to the 30’s.
For instance, it was the means of affording the War of 1812 and the Civil War.
And just before the turn over to the 1900’s Congress established peace-time income tax.
And that tax…well, less than 10% of American’s paid that tax. You had to make over 4 thousand a year (just under $100,000 in 2010’s American market).

Now, during the Depression, for instance, the top income tax rate was up to 75% on anyone earning $5 million annually…translation to today? $77.6 million annual.
75% of that? $58.2 million in taxes paid to the government during the Depression if you were rich like that.

The problem at hand is that people are pointing towards the wrong section of the issue.
The “1%” aren’t evil people by and large.
Take, for instance, the 200+ (200 was the count that appeared in person at the hearing) millionaires that are asking Congress to INCREASE their tax rates and remove their tax cuts which they received during Bush Jr’s terms.

It’s not about the 1%, really.
That’s the mantra, and that’s what many will think, but that’s really the same old story at the ages of old where every time there’s economic hardship the top level wealth, which are never clearly identified, are dehumanized and vilified.

So what is it really about?
Take one look at one graph and think about the implications of this:

See that ever-widening gap between the 95th percentile and 85th percentile?
There’s your problem.

The vast majority of the movement’s population are primarily honestly frustrated with their indentured livelihoods and want it to stop.
The perception is that if you take out the top level earners in the economy that the economic model would restructure and balance out without their hands menacingly tangling into everything.

But hold on…top 1%?
Far less I’m afraid. Most of the ideals of the “1%” are mentioned in regards to those with billions of dollars and just untouchable.
However, the last recorded level of top 1% of incomes in America was around $350,000+ annual.
The tax on that?
33-35% About $115.5 to $122.5 thousand dollars in tax.

Now, there’s also a logistics problem: By population there are around 7% of the household population in the nation accomplishes 1 million or more in income.
Not 1% of the population.
Almost half of that 7% population is retired.

So now we’re looking at 3.5% of the population of households which be eligible by population…maybe.
That’s 3.8 million total households within the 7% that are still working/owning.

Remove LA, for all of the actors etc…, that brings it down to 3.5 million total households.

And most of these folks don’t own giant institutions or have any access to manipulating national banks, nor state government.

So we have to go up.
Billionaires.
There are exactly 413 billionaires in America, as of the last record of this year.
This group COULD possibly influence major political movements, and commercial industries.
These are folks like Bill Gates or Donald Trump.

What % of the total United States population?
0.00013%

What % is that of households?
0.00037%

Either way you cut this…there’s really no evil Empire of Darth Vader’s running around planning to rule the world with the blood of the peasants and slaves.

The issue isn’t them.

If, for no other reason that there aren’t enough of them to manipulate every corner of the banking and stock market economy as they are ascribed as doing.

If you remove them, that gap…this one:

Will not suddenly reduce.
That takes removing financial institutions from being the access gate for education, health, and property combined, and at interest and lending beyond the afford or value of the individual’s liberty being extended to.

Meaning, there should be a requirement in the lending that factors in the requirement of short term return free from debt; such doesn’t exist.
We are permitted to be in debt eternally; in fact, encouraged.

And that’s not Bill Gates or Trump pushing that idea.

14

It’s different in the states, in Britain the national health service is largely paid for via national insurance. Schools and most public services like refuse collection etc are paid for by council tax, it leaves one wondering where much of our income taxes go.

Perhaps with good reason, we moved from feudalism and serfdom to an aristocracy, and that 1% has been the same percentage for over 200 years, so it all seams to follow through. Though I expect that’s not exactly the case, historically we’ve had every reason to mistrust the rich.

Ya the wealth gap is widening. I read that frugal top earners can effectively get their tax down to under 20%. I’ll find some links.

I think the model we are increasingly using ~ franchises, corporates* etc means that you get less middle class, as opposed to small businesses and family run businesses of old. Take 1000 businesses/outlets and if they all belong to one of those* you get a rich board of directors and low paid workers and outlet management. If each business were singularly owned by say a family, then you get more middle income wealth and from that more purchasing power and employment. For example in the construction industry if we had no middle class we’d mostly be paupers.

Wealth redistribution and cost of living reduction [which derivatives on food and other resources [fuel!] have hit] not to mention quality of life [owning own business, being ones own boss] is fundamental to increasing the middle classes. Do we serve capitalism or does it serve us!

Generally there just seams to be a lot of centralisation going on these days.

I done a thread on my view of a more fair and charitable model somewhere around here.
.

15

I’m more, for America at least, interested in seeing polar-centralization; then from there seeing education financed differently.
I haven’t worked out the total variables and workings, but the idea is to have a sub-board of the Secretary of Education, of which is tasked to evaluate the budget requirements (through requests by schools) of higher learning (college, etc…) schools.

They then send their assessment to the Secretary of Education without mind to a budget.
The Secretary of Education then passes this to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, to who then forwards to the Federal Reserve Banks, who then releases loans to the United States Treasury, who then passes this to the Secretary of Education, who then forwards to the individual State sub-boards of education mentioned previously, who then distributes this to the higher education schools as previously outlined in their charter of lending to the Secretary of Education.

In these loan assessments are included the cost of tuition for students.
Keep in mind, the Federal Reserve and Treasury make money on the interest…even when it’s only a deal between the two of them. So no school actually needs to be leaned or involved in the party of borrowing or lending to receive the money for the funding, as the interest from the juggling will accomplish similar rates just from tossing back and froth between the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury.

Then, when the student exits, any company which highers them receives a tax break equal to that student’s account in education per year equal to the number of years that student was in school.
(then remove 50-60% of the other tax breaks that exist for businesses)

If the individual is self-employing after education, then they (as the business; keeping in mind the idea of no separate rights retained by the business than the individual does not mean that there is no separation between personal income and business’ income, nor the taxes therein) receive the same upon their business at half the rate for twice their length spent in school - and not applicable to their personal income.

Unions may require a different approach, but that would need attention there.

This would also go along with another idea of mine, in which the top tax rate is 60-65%; rather than 33-35%.

16

Only until the state is obliterated will genuine individualism present itself.

Permission of the individual isn’t individualism at all as it is slavish social collectivism instead.

17

That’s absolute individualism, not simply the philosophy of individualism applied within a given society as per the facilitation of that society.
Just as democratic philosophy is not equal in every nation, but modular.

18

I accept nothing less than that of absolute individualism.

19

ok…just means you have about as much practical solutions as Willy Wonka, as both exist only in fiction and not in the land of 7 billion actual people.

And you do accept less, as you haven’t died and are living within far less than that now without attempting to change any of it…of which the only means would be violent overthrow and forced restriction to anything other than individualism…which defeats its own terms.

20

Practicality is the ruse and deception of the upper classes by it’s very definition when it concerns their tyranny of directing others.

If anything I’m tolerating my environment like many others are looking for any opportunity to overthrow it.