Antal Fekete's Open Letter To Ron Paul: "Impeach Bernanke"

Tyler Durden's picture


An open letter to Congressman Ron Paul of Texas

Antal E. Fekete

April 6, 2011

Dear Dr. Paul:

There are serious questions about the legality of Quantitative Easing. You are among the few who are well-qualified and well-placed to get to the bottom of it.

Most people believe, and the media confirm them in that belief, that the Fed can legally create dollars ‘out of the thin air’ in any quantity, and can do with them as it pleases. This may well be the pipe dream of Dr. Bernanke who is quoted as saying that the U.S. government has given the Fed a tool, the printing press, to stop deflation — but it hardly corresponds to the truth. The Fed can create new dollars only if some stringent legal conditions are satisfied, and then, it can only dispose of them in certain ways prescribed by law.

Contrary to a statement of Dr. Bernanke, made before he became the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Fed, he could not drop freshly printed dollars from a helicopter, no matter how many reasons for such an action he may be able to cite. Another thing the Fed is not allowed to do legally is to purchase Treasury paper from the U.S. Treasury directly. It must be purchased indirectly through open market operations. If you don’t put the Treasury paper through the test of the open market before the Fed is allowed to buy it, the presumption is that the market would reject it as worthless, or would take it only at a deep discount. The law does not allow the F.R. banks to purchase Treasury paper directly from the Treasury because that would make money creation through the F.R. banks a charade, reserve requirements a farce, and the dollar a sham.

If that were the only problem with Quantitative Easing, it would be bad enough. But there is something else that is even more ominous. The fact is that the Federal Reserve banks can purchase Treasury paper only if they pay with F.R. credit that has been legally created.

F.R. credit (F.R. notes and F.R. deposits) is legally created if it has been issued in accordance with the law. The law says that F.R. credit must be backed by collateral security at the time of issuance, usually in the form of an equivalent amount of U.S. Treasury paper. The procedure is as follows.

The F.R. bank seeking to expand credit takes its Treasury paper, owned outright and free from encumbrances, and posts it as collateral with the Federal Reserve agent who will then authorize the issuing of credit. In other words, if the F.R. banks do not have the unencumbered Treasury paper in their possession, then they cannot create additional credit legally.

There is some evidence that the F.R. banks do not have F.R. credit available to make the kind of purchases Dr. Bernanke is talking about as part of his Quantitative Easing. Nor do they have unencumbered Treasury paper in sufficient quantity that they could post with the F.R. agent for authorizing the issue of additional F.R. credit.
The point is that the process of posting collateral first, and augmenting F.R. credit afterwards must under no circumstances be reversed. What the F.R. banks cannot legally do is to buy the Treasury paper first with unauthorized F.R. credit, post the paper as collateral, and justify the illegal issuance of credit retroactively. Nor can they borrow the bond from the Treasury, post it as collateral, and pay for the bond retroactively.

This is an important limitation separating the regime of market-based irredeemable currency from the regime of fiat money involving outright monetization of government debt — the graveyard where the Continental dollar, the assignat, the mandat, the Reichsmark, and the Zimbabwe dollar (among countless others) rest.

At any rate, retroactive authorization of F.R. credit, if that’s what the Fed is up to, would be a violation of both the letter and spirit of the F.R. Act. It would mean converting the dollar into outright fiat money through the back door, bypassing Congress. It would show absolute bad faith on the part of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Dr. Ben Bernanke, who certainly knows what the law is. Such a blatant violation of the law would make him totally unfit for the powerful office he occupies. It would call for his immediate and dishonorable discharge by the President, pending Congressional investigation of the matter.

The various violations of the law of which the Fed is accused point to a concerted effort to remove the shackles the law has put on the money spigots lest crooks help themselves to the public purse. These violations are not isolated incidents. They are aiming at the corruption of the monetary order of the nation and the world. Moreover, they would ultimately figure prominently among the causes of the financial instability the world has been suffering from since 1971 and, more recently, since 2008.

Without understanding this fundamental truth, all talk about stabilizing the monetary system and reining in the runaway budget deficit is an exercise in futility.

Yours very sincerely,

Antal E. Fekete
Professor (retired)
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Tel./Fax: +36-1-325-7996

Note: an identical letter has been sent to Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
metastar's picture

There is total, complete, and utter lawlessness. Our government, its legal system, regulatory bodies, and the financial system have completely broken down. The $hit is in the air and heading toward the fan. Outright war is being waged on the peasants who are too blind to see.

Take cover.

unwashedmass's picture

thank you god, at last someone with a "name" is starting to talk about how to stop Bernanke.

i-dog's picture

"Starting to talk" indeed. There are some interesting conjectures in the letter, but it does not demand any specific actions (contrary to what I was led to believe from TD's headline). The final paragraph....

"Without understanding this fundamental truth, all talk about stabilizing the monetary system and reining in the runaway budget deficit is an exercise in futility."

.... is also just an opinion.

Anyone who has ever written a business letter knows that the final paragraph should have been a specific call to action. Ron Paul may well file it under "TL;DR".

Harlequin001's picture

The only reason you have a deficit is because the government demands it. There is no way that Congress or any other government is going to create its own sovereign default.

One day I'm sure people will realise that the system is structured to fund the deficit on the most artificially low terms possible which means that you lose, government wins... for a while anyway..

Nobody is going to undermine that.


OliverTwist's picture

This is a good point. Banks/central banks are only part of the system and in this only part of the problem. But further also government is only part of the system and part of the problem. Now let alone corruption for a moment and look at spending. Most of it is going to health care and social services. So at the end you have the people who demand deficit. At the bottom you have HUMAN NATURE as the starting point of the problem. Let's be honest: very few people would refuse money without working for it, a free meal. Now government should control the system, but how could they ever control it, they are also human. So the central bank should control the government spending, but again humans are controlling humans. Even gold, the gold standard wasn't able to control spending because it was established by humans and abolished by humans at will! I have difficulty to think of a system without pain where people, governments, banks working wisely toghether. It seems to me that human kind is learning only by pain and this also only for a while, then they forget the pain and restart doing the same mistakes only at a higher complexity social level. So it appears as a solution but it is not really one.

This is a psychological-social problem not a central bank monetary problem only.



Harlequin001's picture

It is a cycle. We need a gold standard so that people can develop some belief in the value of money once again, so that we can then embark once again on a system of fiat funded welfare before we revert thereafter to another gold standard and so the cycle repeats.

It is a cycle driven by ourselves, when all is said and done.

It is a problem called 'Democracy'.

i-dog's picture

"Let's be honest: very few people would refuse money without working for it, a free meal."

This says more about you than it does about "people". It's called "projection" in psychological circles.

OliverTwist's picture

I have never claimed to be perfect Mr. Sigmund!

But anyway the above sentence is true. (Even if it is pronounced by another imperfect human.) If you don't believe it do your own testing, using your creativity.

For example you could leave a $100 note on the street and observe how many "people" would leave it there because they didn't work for it or how many people would bring it to the police. ... think about it. (and among the ones who bring it to the police how many do it only because they fear that somebody has seen them)

It is called "field research" in psychological circles. Don't read only the theory and the books of the old Wiener-Schule! ;)


Take care,


masterinchancery's picture

As the French say, "sauve qui peut"!

nkktwotwozero's picture

>There is total, complete, and utter lawlessness.

Judge should be like [pounds on table]:



Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

OldTrooper's picture

One night of rehabilitation for the Bernank!

Moe Howard's picture

You are correct. They, meaning the Powers That Be, have made many public statements through their mouthpieces in the public eye that they do not follow the Constitution. This latest affront to the Constitution, the War on Libya, is just another poke in the eye of the Republic.

As we no longer follow the Constitution, we are nothing more than a Bankster Thugcracy. No different than Red China or KGB Russia.


<HELP> For Explanation.

24KGOLD FOIL HAT's picture

I just posted on the Banzai economy thread, then thought I shoulda put a Fekete link in cuz I mentioned the Fekete Real Bills Revival. 

Please read all of Fekete's stuff, its the best!

cosmictrainwreck's picture

yer hat soooo out-classes mine.... drat. but i can still hear the voices...

slewie the pi-rat's picture

dude foil hat!  not one word, here, has a thing to do with Real Bills!

actually, i feel kinda sorry for our friend, the nutty professor, here.

if he is describing the Primary Dealer "auction", why does he use the term credit, for the "Federal Reserve banks" payment to the Treasury, or to whomever the "credit" is extended.  why does he not speak of the Primary Dealers?  is he speaking of "fractional reserve-type credit?" 

who can tell from this crap?

i'm sorry, i do not think he makes a cogent case.  i'm really v. sorry! 

he doesn't seem to "get" that the QE is when Batmanke creates the digital dollars to POMO the Treasury debt from these Primary Dealers.  that is called QE or funding the debt, or expanding goobermint credit and providing the cash to write the checks on it, at the same time. 

i may be wrong, but i don't think the prof. makes his case, here.  bummer.

FunkyMonkeyBoy's picture

Oh god, placing hope in Ron 'Wet Lettuce' Paul. What's he done so far apart from jibber-jabber?

High Plains Drifter's picture

don't forget, arabs with box cutters caused 911. it was blowback........

Strike Back's picture

Is he supposed to go Alex Jones?

thedrickster's picture

That's exactly what he needs to do.

He is an old man with little to lose, the truth just might resonate at this moment in history.

nkktwotwozero's picture

>the truth just might resonate at this moment in history.

Yeah...the's widely popular. </sarcasm>

Savyindallas's picture

maybe 5 Mossad agents posing as arabs with box cutters

Bob Sponge's picture

The only way we can have significant change is if the majority of the American public is behind it. However, most Americans don't know about the workings of the Fed or even who Bernanke is.

maximin thrax's picture

Americans like sticking taxes to the rich and crooked. One solution to Fed abuse of the printing press is to tax the member banks at a punitive rate, say between 50% and 90%, on all proceeds of sales of ineligible assets to the Fed and on all interest on money derived from unauthorized Federal Reserve credit. If the banks actually lose money doing illicit business with the Fed then that crap stops. No need to wait for somebody to reign in the Fed.

Let the Social Security Administration start a bank and hand the revenue derived from this tax to the SSA to wipe out some of those IOU's. $500 Billion could capitalize $6 Trillion in loans at a 12:1 capital ratio. In a way, that privatizes SS and keeps the cash out of Congress's hands. At a mere 3% profit SS could net hundreds of billions of dollars in income that would help offset the negative cash flow now and organically grow the fund to deal with future demand. Americans with good credit and minimum 10% down could borrow from this bank mortgages of no more than 3x income and pay themselves back the interest while TBTF is allowed to fail.

Doña K's picture

Yes! There are many similar solutions. But we are making the assumption that the PTB are willing to ditch the bank bitches. Then, we also do not know who the bondholders are that are not willing to take the haircuts, let alone total loss.

The game is rigged and short of a true grassroot revolution, it will not happen.

Clampit's picture

It's happening, albeit slowly. More independent states can read the writing on the wall and are considering the final solution. Governments further down the chain will realize the only way to save themselves is to throw someone else under the bus. Remember, without the fed and PD's, the feds cease to exist. Not many outside NY / DC will miss them.

Voluntary Exchange's picture


While gold and silver being respected by a state is certainly better than mass theft through debasement, this is not the "final solution" 

The final solution is one that will prevent people ending up right where we are today.  You cannot have security when your "security provider" has the power to steal (tax)!  You can't have justice, when your "justice provider" has the power to rig all decisions in it's favor. We need to transition from monopoly governmental services to a free market model.  You can call such a system "voluntarism" or use Hans-Hermann Hoppe's term: "private law society"

See: --


Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: I prefer the term "private law society." In a private law society every individual and institution is subject to one and the same set of laws. No public law granting privileges to specific persons or functions exists in this society. There is only private law (and private property), equally applicable to each and everyone. No one is permitted to acquire property by means other than through original appropriation of previously un-owned things, through production, or through voluntary exchange, and no one possesses a privilege to tax and expropriate. Moreover, no one is permitted to prohibit anyone else from using his property in order to enter any line of production he wishes and compete against whomever he pleases.

Daily Bell: How would law and order be provided in this society? How would your ideal justice system work?

Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: In a private law society the production of law and order – of security – would be undertaken by freely financed individuals and agencies competing for a voluntarily paying (or not-paying) clientele – just as the production of all other goods and services. How this system would work can be best understood in contrast to the workings of the present, all-too-familiar statist system. If one wanted to summarize in one word the decisive difference – and advantage – of a competitive security industry as compared to the current statist practice, it would be: contract.

The state operates in a legal vacuum. There exists no contract between the state and its citizens. It is not contractually fixed, what is actually owned by whom, and what, accordingly, is to be protected. It is not fixed, what service the state is to provide, what is to happen if the state fails in its duty, nor what the price is that the "customer" of such "service" must pay. Rather, the state unilaterally fixes the rules of the game and can change them, per legislation, during the game. Obviously, such behavior is inconceivable for freely financed security providers. Just imagine a security provider, whether police, insurer or arbitrator, whose offer consisted in something like this: I will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you – but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service. Any such security provider would immediately disappear from the market due to a complete lack of customers.

Each private, freely financed security producer must instead offer its prospective clients a contract. And these contracts must, in order to appear acceptable to voluntarily paying consumers, contain clear property descriptions as well as clearly defined mutual services and obligations. Each party to a contract, for the duration or until the fulfillment of the contract, would be bound by its terms and conditions; and every change of terms or conditions would require the unanimous consent of all parties concerned.

Specifically, in order to appear acceptable to security buyers, these contracts must contain provisions about what will be done in the case of a conflict or dispute between the protector or insurer and his own protected or insured clients as well as in the case of a conflict between different protectors or insurers and their respective clients. And in this regard only one mutually agreeable solution exists: in these cases the conflicting parties contractually agree to arbitration by a mutually trusted but independent third party. And as for this third party: it, too, is freely financed and stands in competition with other arbitrators or arbitration agencies. Its clients, i.e., the insurers and the insured, expect of it, that it come up with a verdict that is recognized as fair and just by all sides. Only arbitrators capable of forming such judgments will succeed in the arbitration market. Arbitrators incapable of this and viewed as biased or partial will disappear from the market.

Daily Bell: Are you denying, then, that we need the state to defend us?

Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Indeed. The state does not defend us; rather, the state aggresses against us and it uses our confiscated property to defend itself. The standard definition of the state is this: the state is an agency characterized by two unique, logically connected features. First, the state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making. That is, the state is the ultimate arbiter and judge in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself and its agents. There is no appeal above and beyond the state. Second, the state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of taxation. That is, it is an agency that can unilaterally fix the price that its subjects must pay for the state's service as ultimate judge. Based on this institutional set-up you can safely predict the consequences. First, instead of preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will cause and provoke conflict in order to settle it to its own advantage. That is, the state does not recognize and protect existing law, but it perverts law through legislation. Contradiction number one: the state is a law-breaking law protector. Second, instead of defending and protecting anyone or anything, a monopolist of taxation will invariably strive to maximize his expenditures on protection and at the same time minimize the actual production of protection. The more money the state can spend and the less it must work for this money, the better off it is. Contradiction number two: the state is an expropriating property protector.



Harlequin001's picture

Alternatively you could set up a non resident trust, transfer your assets to it and then not worry about your government stealing it, because they can't.

Of course, the easiest thing to hold overseas is gold bullion, because the non resident trustee could store it anywhere you felt comfortable...

The trick is to avoid being held personally liable for the tax on the profits of a non resident trust or company.

That, is not a difficult thing to do...

Voluntary Exchange's picture

Yep, you are sharp.  You maybe saw my post last week about how those who set up the original IRS code designed it precisely with the the trust loopholes you are pointing out. 

That also means, if you are "one of us" and in the know then you don't have to pay any income taxes, just let all the "little people" pay taxes.  Morally, I can not endorse such a deceptive system going forward even though I know about the methods you are pointing out, and I might have used them myself if I had more than about 400,000 a year to protect. Or I might have just chosen to purchase an offshore non-income taxing  country passport and renounced US citizenship altogether.  Either of those solutions still leaves hundreds of millions enslaved who do not know any better. I prefer a more up front system based on free market defense and free market justice.  I think everyone should be  able to renounce US "citizenship" at any time and not be required to join another "tax farm" to do it.  They should be free to remain in the "land of the free" and then face the responsibility of how they will obtain their defense or justice services themselves and who ever they might pay for such services.

Clampit's picture

It may not be the final solution itself, but this is a step towards that end; secession, if only monetary at first.

I'm a huge fan of the stateless society (private law, market anarchy, self government, too many terms for the same concept), but I don't see some climactic change overnight. More probable is the gradual dispersion of power through cannibalism. "It's those evil out of town politicians that give power a bad name, I'll help you fend them off if you let me keep my position." I suppose society could just snap one day and shrug it all off, but it's not the likely course IMHO.

Many thanks for the info!

thedrickster's picture

I've come to the conclusion that the majority of the Amerikan public are scum, fuck them.

Change will about as a result of inertia. The key will be to have credible voices in place to remind the scum from whence their former prosperity actually originated and how to go about getting it back.

The socialistas will be ready and will probably win.

Time to go (Horace Greely)/3, for at least free enterprise is still valued in that part of the world.

thedrickster's picture

Whomever junked this is Amerikan scum personified.

Strike Back's picture

"I've come to the conclusion that the majority of the Amerikan public are scum, fuck them."  You a banker?

thedrickster's picture

Nope, just someone who has had the displeasure of listening to my neighbors interact.

You think the Federal Government is fucked up, well check out local government. Want to see a totalitarian nightmare in action, attend a city council meeting. Want to see real life brownshirts, look for the soccer mom nazi corps and listen to the list of items/behaviors they seek to ban. They are coming for your happy meals bitch, as you are clearly too stupid too save the children from mystery meat. The Jones family's HELOC is kaput but there is room on the Discover card to buy self affirming garbage and hell, at least their SUV is more trick than their loser neighbor's. The worst part, these fuckers are going to have their underwater princpal forgiven before it's over.

What a joy is democracy, being ruled by sociopaths, control freaks, armchair Rambos, collectivist scum, sycophants and fat assed housewives with too much time on their hands.

I'll say it again, fuck them.

Seer's picture

I tend to view people as being poorly programmed.  Actually, not sure if it's "poorly," just "programmed," products of a really crappy environment (controlled by BIG entities).

Voluntary Exchange's picture

@ thedrickster:

The beauty of reality is that you don't need to "F***" them, reality is going do that right where their misconceptions lie.  It does it on a regular basis throughout history.  Most can't handle that kind of truth and want to blame others rather than themselves. 

Sadly, when things get this absurd, a great deal of suffering is what is going to come.  This will get manny people's attention and give them added ability to focus on their situation.

But when you feel so strongly about something as you do to start cursing people, just remember - you can use that energy by focusing it to try and teach people who will listen, and there always are those who will, and most importantly see that your own children in your family understand the "facts of life".  Take them to your local zoo and show them how those in human form are behaving like beasts.  It is a profoundly valuable moment in human history, because at least for the time being, what you are able to see can be shared with hundreds and hundreds of millions of other people on this planet.

Those not willing to respect other's life, liberty, and property will soon enough discover that others will also not respect their own life, liberty and property.  Those who want to empower thugs in a state to survive by armed aggression and theft (taxation), and think that they can obtain justice from an entity that is final authority of all disputes, including those against itself will soon enough experience what all other civilizations have experienced.  Statism always fails. It is founded on absurd contradictions:  that you can have secure property by giving a gang exclusive power to steal, (tax), that you can have justice, by giving that same group power to overrule everyone else, regardless of how that violates life, liberty, and property.

While the US was intended to be a republic, it functions more and more today as a pseudo-democracy while in fact being just another collectivist tool to plunder those without political power - (at this point almost everyone not empowered by globalist corporate domination).  Democracy is a "god" that always fails, just as republics never last because they are also founded on the above contradictions - as in - "congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes".  What happened to "just powers" being based on consent (The Declaration of Independence in the US Revolution)?  If someone does not vote for a system, it is a fraud and deception to claim that they "consent" to a system. Rather, they are held at gunpoint into going along with those in power or they are destroyed, or they flee to somewhere else they hope to be more "free".  Until we as a people adopt free market security coupled with free market justice we will just keep repeating the same old misery of human history.


Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the Impracticality of One-World Government and the Failure of Western-Style Democracy"


"People Of The Lie: The Psychopathology Of The “Public Servant” And The Sociopathology Of The State"

"Positively Wrong: Positivism, That Is"

"The Governance Of A Free Society"

"Non-Aggression Principle"

"Sunset of the State" -

"On the Edge W M Keiser, Voluntarism" -

"Statism is Dead - The Matrix" -

"Statism is Dead - Free Range Humans" -

"Statism is Dead -Terrorism" -

"The Story of Your Enslavement" -

"I'm Allowed to rob you!" -


Harlequin001's picture

It's a great idea but the reality is that even if you did manage to adopt this, what would you do when the British Navy pitches up in war ships paid for tomorrow that you have to fight today?

That's how empire's are built, and you need a state, and dare I say a banking system to counter it otherwise you become part of the empire.

It is just one big cycle, because nothing is sustainable indefinitely.

and this one is ending...

Voluntary Exchange's picture


You are making the same mistake statist thinking always makes, that free market defense is by its nature either no defense or wholly inadequate to the task of the "majesty" of the powers of the tyrants.


You can further your education below but it would be useful for you to understand what motivates free people when they are truly free as opposed to those who are enslaved by tyrants. It is also useful to understand where true commitment and valor can be expected, in those with the moral high ground or with thieves, frauds, and murderers. As a practical matter, those who must daily earn their living by demonstrated competence in a free market are as a rule, man-for-man, much better performers than those who "serve" via political or statist selection that is paid for by captive slaves and equipped by those winning a government "contract".





Also keep in mind that it was the ideals of the American Revolution, including the idea of consent, (meaning only those you agree with do you "pay" to provide governmental services), and thus what was emboldening the American Revolution were the very principles of a genuinely free society that was only later betrayed by the coup of the Constitution. So you have a rather good example in history that such a defense is possible, even against seemingly overwhelming odds. 


See Spooner below for more on the betrayal of the Revolution that the Constitution ended up being:


Moe Howard's picture

Thank you for your well thought out and educated posts. I, myself, have gained from you two posts in this thread. Of course, you are correct in what you say. We have no 'consent', if I don't have money to pay property tax, they will make me homeless, although I 'own' my home. I have no choice but to pay sales tax, income tax, tax on my insurance, entertainment, food, communication, financial acts, etc. I have consented to none of the taxes imposed on me by threat of violence.

Harlequin001's picture

Voluntary Exchange, sadly, whilst I agree with your sentiments history does not support your view, rather that all peoples of the world either will or have succumbed to the ability to borrow rather than steal. After all, to steal you must have something to plunder, to borrow you need only the promise to repay.

'thus what was emboldening the American Revolution were the very principles of a genuinely free society that was only later betrayed by the coup of the Constitution'

Would were that true, but the verifiable facts are that slavery was abolished by the British throughout the empire (which included the Americas) before the Revolution which sought and successfully managed to perpetuate it. Perhaps you might choose a different example of a society that successfully managed to defend it.

'You are making the same mistake statist thinking always makes, that free market defense is by its nature either no defense or wholly inadequate to the task of the "majesty" of the powers of the tyrants.' We should not forget that the White House is white, thanks to the British...

Whilst your sentiments are noble, in my view they cannot possibly work.


Voluntary Exchange's picture

You are rightfully sighting a huge contradiction to the founding of America.  Remember that the declaration itself stated "all men are created equal"  ("equal" in that they had certain unalienable rights). So I would not agree that the stated ideals of the revolution itself "sought to perpetuate" slavery. This revolution is the first time I am aware of that this principle of unalienable natural rights universal to all men was being asserted also together with the idea that only systems based upon consent are valid forms of social organization (and thus include "government" as such a voluntary system),  to thus attempt to organize a society going forward.

This argument against slavery can also be viewed as further evidence that the Constitution was again a betrayal of the stated ideals.   The ideals themselves were, as you point out, not being representative of what the actual conditions on the ground were in the southern colonies even as the revolution was taking place and this is of course a weakness of this example as you rightly cite. Even if you go back to what appears to be the voluntarist system of pre-Catholic and later pre-conquered Ireland there is still that lowest class of landless people you can call "slaves".

I could however point out that when a state will take other's property or life or liberty via force and without consent, in that respect for a nation such as the British to claim that it had abolished slavery was itself a contraction in that sense as all its subjects who did not consent were in that way "slaves" and likewise after the civil war, while it appeared that the "slaves" had been freed, with the idea of consent being ignored at that point, the US itself was also continuing to make everyone who did not "consent" a slave.  


I am not sure I am understanding your point about "borrowing", especially as it relates to those who did not wish to support the government as expressed under the Constitution and therefor were not voluntarily willing to pay a tax to support it.  Are you talking about banking and how that institution when it is able to use state power with legal tender laws can defraud by lending something is might not actually posses in the first place? Or maybe you are pointing out that when someone borrows and is not able to pay back that they can become a "slave"? That seems to be the way it has worked through most of human history. Those families that have children but lack the means to properly support them are definitely placing their children at an extreme disadvantage. And I can certainly agree that much poverty results from the after affects of earlier crimes that are never properly adjudicated (often because of the monopoly of adjudication powers that the state itself claims and creates the conditions whereby the victims of crime cannot attempt to pursue just restitution).

Harlequin001's picture

When I refer to borrowing what I am saying is that regardless of your intent to self govern freely, there is no defence against an outside aggressor who can borrow to overwhelm and defeat you. A borrower needs no collateral or assets just a promise to repay to raise an army whereas your argument assumes assets available to defend yourself. You have no protection as the world discovered at the hands of the most successful and prevalent borrowers, the British empire.

My reference to slavery is in that the date of the abolition of slavery predates the revolution in which (I believe) Washington and Jefferson were prominent slavers. Their entire businesses were to be wiped out by that British law which lends an entirely different perspective to that of the revolution being about the freedom and escape from tyranny and one more in line with protecting the revolutionary leaders from a British rope.

Whilst I admire your attempt to justify this I just can't see how it can possibly work, or that it ever did.

Voluntary Exchange's picture

Hi again:

Yes they did borrow to create an empire.  And yes, that debt ultimately sunk their empire. And perhaps more importantly their system, including the "Red Coats",  was merely a tool to be used and  exploited by the real power behind the scenes that has for some time been referred to as the "money power", as Hoppe bravely dared to hint at later in the above interview. These sorts always prefer to remain in the shadows and then shift their "flag of convenience" to where ever it suits them. I wouldn't be so strongly against them if it were not that they often leave in their wake millions and millions of suffering and dead people and this planet can't take much more of this nonsense.  The planet does not need to continue this way, even though there are still those today that will work for whoever crosses "silver" across their palms, or in the case of their latest methods, fiat currency that "nations", (their puppets), insist be used by their "subjects".

I prefer methods that will make this planet ready to join the larger community of "mature" civilizations that exits "out there" rather than to see our progress continue to be held back by the most dark and sociopathic. And yes you have again pointed out one of the dirty little facts about "America" while those who now have "debt slavery" down to a well developed science continue to flourish with their new and improved form of slavery because so many "humans" are so corruptible, but also because they are so skillful at using "states" as their puppets.  People like me sure have a plenty big challenge trying to help turn people's lights on if they want to.  All those other folks have to do is keep them in the dark,  subject to their greed and animal tendencies.

I do not see you willing to discuss too much the idea of "consent" as an organizing social principle, or you seem to only be willing to recognize such a privileged status for those "in the know" or those who can be bought?? There is "dark" "consent" and their is "light" "consent". What flavor is yours? What about the responsibility of educating those who don't understand what is going on? It almost seems like you are wanting to play the role of "recruiter" here, if so you would be wasting your time.  If I put easy "wealth" ahead of principle I could have been very "rich" long ago. No point changing my tune now. Maybe you can just chalk me up as another one on the "list" to be "rounded up" when ever, if ever that day may come?

Harlequin001's picture

It is human nature to take what you cannot have. You will never beat the 'money power' because your assets are their collateral once they've funded someone to take it. This I agree.

My issue is this, that humanity consists of many people of different types who think differently. I surround myself with people that I know and trust, that I can rely on and do business with, i.e I trust them to return to me what goods of mine they use. Integrity is a big thing with me and most other decent folk. Fact is we surround ourselves with like minded people who have characteristics we admire in ourselves, but when you think about it, the last quality you need to be a king or politician is integrity. More, the ability to look someone in the eye and lie through your teeth will garner success in those particular circles.

Society is therefore structured to be the exact antithesis of your suggestion, that everyone can behave the same with the same principles of consent. They cannot. It is an ideal and that is good but that doesn't mean it works. Like communism, why should I work hard when some pen pushing arsehole does not, and worse when others do no work whatsoever because they know the right people.

It is not just the banks that cause wars in my view, but rather ordinary folk who want all they can get and preferably for free if they can get it. The first cretin to promise them everything is the one who gets their support, and it doesn't matter if there's no way they can provide it.

Look at Egypt. What do we have there? We have a popular revolution in a country where 70% of adults are employed by the government, and where by popular revolt they've installed a new junta which they expect to provide them more of the same welfare that the previous govt could not afford. There is only one solution, for the government to slaughter Egyptians because the reason for the revolt cannot be provided, so the only way out realistically is to march them over a border where they will get shot or fed, but the problem will resolve itself. I see no money interests here.

The fact is that you are assuming that you are surrounded by decent folk, and that they like you want to learn more. My point is that you are not, and whilst I believe you may have the highest ideals and integrity sadly those around you do not. the most perfect plans don't work when you factor in human nature.

and no, I recruit for nobody, just looking for an intelligent debate and to see if I can learn something new. Thanks for your time.

Voluntary Exchange's picture

@ Harlequin:

It is an illusion to believe that you can "have" by "taking" all though this material world is built on allusions.  What are you calling "human" here? Those I would call "human" know and value what they have and also respect what others truly have and always "ask" and never "take". It is a beast that takes through the power of its fangs or the stealth of its camoflauge, it is the "man" who exchanges or does not when he receives a "no".

There are choices that lead to scarcity, misery, hunger and death. And there are choices that lead to mutual plenty and well being, not just for people but for all things that people find they have stewardship over. What follows in the the wake of your "business"? Integrity can be a great thing but what is the end result of this "integrity" you speak of? Do you "admire" those who cannot be bought when they have strong ethical reservations about a transaction? Surely you have met a few? Do you ever employ "politicians" or "kings"?

I don't think we agree about the "money power".  Just remember that "never" is a very very very long time. Tell me who has the most patience? If the seller has no price, can it be bought? If the seller did not "sell" today for reasons that from a higher perspective could be considered "just", then for TODAY this "money power" has been "beaten" in this individual case has it not? Does this "money power" we are talking about "take" or "ask"?  I hope you can appreciate that those who designed this reality were prepared to wait a very very very long time to "mine" their "gold".  Some one who has never traveled to our reality might say that - "such a strange thing could never ever happen!" but here we are!


A statist society based on force is the exact antithesis of my above suggestion.  A voluntary exchange even between just two trusting and honorable people is an actual embodiment of the "society" I speak of as long as what they do does not "scorch the Earth" or harm anyone else. So such a "society" already exists! What kind of  people do you "trust"?

Yes for sure those who are in the pickle you describe in Egypt have got some ruff choices ahead, just as many Americans do. Again, those who can cooperate and are producers instead of takers have a shot at making it if they can help each other. And the "takers" may or may not "make" it going forward, depending on how you define "making" it.

Yes I know there are many who are not "decent" and many who are not intersted in learning.  But the "decent" do exist and it is in each of our interests to recognize each other and help each other where we can.  The more predatory the average population is, the more precious the truly voluntary relationships become. It is a generally true statement that voluntary transactions provide mutual improvement, and generally true that involuntary transactions do not provide mutual benefit.