Tuesday, January 4, 2011
The American Dream
This is a great video, but at the same time it's sad that many people are unwilling are uninterested in something as important as where money comes from unless it's explained via cartoons.
Update: The first video had about 150,000 views in 4 or 5 days, then it was removed by the user. The second video I embeded here was also removed a couple of days later. Here it is for the third time...for how long I don't know. I would like to know what's going on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The only problem with this version is the perspective that commoners are purely victims and the actual (non-video) reality that everyone places their values in life on gold (or any variable). The issue starts with a commoner’s greed and self delusion, not bankers or governments (who have their own set of flawed ways). When an average person signs an agreement, he/she needs to understand and abide by their word.
Ben Franklin’s statement that “he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither” is also too widely applied. When I wear a seatbelt, my movement is limited, but the trade-off is valid. When I stop at a stop sign or signal, when one abides by lengthy rules in order to fly a private plane, and when I pay hard-earned money for a weapon freedom of some kind is traded for security. We do this a thousand times a day in uncountable ways- sacrificing freedom for security. When men have any form of power over others, that form of power and authority is inevitably challenged and disagreed with- an example of Austrian economics in terms of power distribution. In the USA, masses have the ability to reset much in debate, but greed is again the problem. Just as a single person’s monetary greed can fuel money issues such as the video explains, a single voter’s political greed and self delusion fuels authority issues.
I see what you're saying. I wish they would have used the longer, more accurate quote from Franklin instead of the short version. It was something he repeated a few times, but he said them a little different each time.
The difference between wearing a seat belt and monetary policy is that the State doesn't move against non-seat belt wearers in violent force like it does against those who shun the debt and slavery brought on by paper money. The quote by Franklin is accurate in the context of this video since the subject matter is exactly the same as it was when he said it. Only he had a little better understanding of the nature of the subject since he was in a war over it, so I don't think his quote is in any way misapplied.
I'm am learning just how hard the state moves against driver violators now ironically. Court procedures and fees are an overly complicated and convoluted mess (a discussion for another time I suppose). Anyway, I guess I see the point Franklin was trying to make- I just disagree about who deserves what. It seems that if a state wants to sacrifice freedom for security, they deserve security (even at that ridiculous cost). North Korea is a good example maybe. If someone wants to sacrifice the other way around, it seems fair too.
I think it makes sense when it's put in context with what else was going on when Franklin said it. There are many parallels with today's current events, but of course there are differences too. It just depends on how hard we look for them. Obviously individuals in society have rules to obey in order for some sort of fundamental cohesion, but it can be taken too far-to a point where the government acts independently of the citizens for purposes of control. It always happens, everywhere, eventually. It's a terrible cycle.
Post a Comment