### Apollo BBS Archive - January 7, 1992

    X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 5294
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Bad news
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 02:49:15

    Our neighbor's house burned down at Thanksgiving in 1990.  It's a pretty
    devastating blow.  They still haven't got it replaced, though they're still
    operating their business on the land (training horses).

    The good news I heard this evening is that Russ Whitney is moving toward
    consciousness; so much so, in fact, that they're sedating him because he
    wants to fight his breathing tube.  They want to keep him well ventilated to
    speed up the healing process.

    Message: 5295
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Breathing tube
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 21:22:05

    Yeah, but they're going to cut open his throat now and stick in a tube --
    tracheotomy, tracheostomy -- and they hope he'll start breathing on his own
    within about seven days or there might be complications from this.

    Message: 5296
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: last
    Date: 01/08/92  Time: 00:22:58

    If I were badly damaged and a good recovery seemed unlikely then I rather be
    unplugged and allowed to go it on my own.  If for instance I lost several
    limbs or my eyeballs or was mentally impaired then I'd rather be pushing up
    daisies than trying to take part in this system.

    I know there have been many people who were physically deformed but made
    contributions to the human race on one level or another.  Helen Keller comes
    to mind.  I just think we humans tend to put too much emphasis on staying
    alive in these physical bodies.

    The survivors are the ones who are hurt the most perhaps.

    Public Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 81304
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Parties
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 02:34:45

    Most of the problems with political parties can be boiled down to the fact
    that party leaders don't always do the will of the party's ordinary members.
    It would be very advantageous to force changes in the way the parties
    operate, but the difficulty here is that both the Republocrat and the
    Demolician party benefit from the way the system is structured, and they're
    both going to fight any changes tooth and nail.

    I'm not sure if requiring "members to actually agree with 90% of the party
    platform before allowing them into the party" refers to "members" who are
    actually running for political office, or ordinary supporters who just
    contribute money, votes, and effort, and generally cheer the party on.  If
    it means the former, then I wholeheartedly agree.  If it means the latter, I
    can't see what would possibly force a party to institute a rule that would
    erode its support base by excluding members.  Anyway, it's one thing to make
    sure party members agree with the policies of the party; but isn't the real
    goal the converse one: to make party policy reflect the will of its members?

    A fundamental difficulty in trying to force change in the Federal government
    is that there's too little provision for the ordinary citizen to initiate
    such change effectively.  Any call for such change is heavily filtered
    through the machinations of incumbent politicians and watered down by the
    layers of party machinery.  Getting a third party off the ground to the
    point that it presents a realistic threat to the two established ones has
    been prohibitively difficult so far.

    To win votes, a party must have very broad appeal.  This is more true than
    ever if it's a newcomer competing with two strongly established parties.
    There are lots of smaller parties, though many of them focus on one issue
    (tax limitation, "Green" parties and so forth) and so can never have really
    broad appeal.  What issue could be general enough to garner widespread
    support?  How about the one issue that everybody complains about: the way
    government itself is run and its unresponsiveness to popular demands about
    the things that never seem to change, regardless of who is in power?

    Surely it should be possible to establish a new party whose platform is
    simply that it will respond to its members' views on the issues.  This must
    be written into the party's own constitution right from the start.  Such a
    party, if successful in elections, could act as a kind of "government within
    the government".  The party constitution would mandate frequent (perhaps
    weekly) newsletters summarizing the pros and cons of issues and legislation
    in progress, and provide for initiative petitions from its members and
    letter ballots allowing the ordinary member to express his opinions: A, B,
    C, D, or "None of the Above", whatever the issue happened to be.  The
    party's constitution would bind its representatives elected to public office
    to follow the expressed will of the members when it came to voting on a bill
    in Congress, for example.  I would expect an enormous interest in truly
    participatory government.  I'd think a modest subscription of $100 a year or
    so should cover the cost of these services to members.  I think I'd call it
    the "Citizens' Party".  Now why hasn't this idea been tried?

    Message: 81306
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Creationism
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 02:37:13

    Science is a vast, intricate network of interrelated observations and
    theories.  By and large, the pieces fit together fairly neatly, like a well-
    done jigsaw puzzle.  The reason they do fit together is that thousands of
    people over the course of centuries have examined these pieces and asked
    themselves how they fit together best.  There are still a great many small
    gaps, and some much larger ones with question marks in them.  There are also
    many pieces that don't fit together quite right, leaving lumps and bumps.
    Every so often, someone makes a major discovery that just doesn't fit the
    rest of the puzzle, and then a whole bunch of pieces have to be pulled out
    and rearranged to make room for the new data.

    The problem with trying to find a place for a doctrine like creationism is
    that it just won't fit.  There is a little data that one could interpret to
    mean that the world was made no earlier than 4004 BC, that men were created
    from nothing, and so forth.  There's also a great mountain of other data to
    suggest that things happened differently.  It's rather like examining
    material evidence with a comparator microscope.  "Exhibit A showed twenty-
    three points of similarity with Exhibit B, and I therefore conclude that the
    bullet found in the body of the deceased was fired from the defendant's
    gun."  It's all a matter of probabilities, but the probability of one thing
    being true is doubtful, while the probability of the other is overwhelming.

    I wonder if people who cling to dogmas such as creationism have a great need
    for absolute certainties in life, even though such certainties don't exist.

    The great strength of creationism is that if you accept it, it *is* a
    certainty.  It's fixed.  It never changes, unlike scientific knowledge which
    is constantly being revised.  It's rigid, like the Rock of Ages; and a rock
    can be a more comforting thing than shifting sand.  But that same rigidity
    makes it hard to deal with.  You can't force it easily into the jigsaw
    puzzle of scientific knowledge, because it won't give.

    If it were a flexible doctrine, you could look at it and say "the words in
    the Book are evidence of some kind, so let's see what set of circumstances
    might have caused men to write these words down on paper."  And you'd factor
    in what you know about religion, and ancient history, and legend, and
    allegory, and you'd even come up with a core of truth that's important.

    But when it won't bend even one inch, the only way to fit it into the puzzle
    is to hammer it in so that everything else gets twisted out of shape.
    Anything that's fundamentally untrue has this kind of effect.  If you tell
    one falsehood, you have to tell ten more to cover it up, and a hundred more
    to cover up those ten, and so on.

    A beautiful example of this kind of distortion is one attempt of "creation
    scientists" to explain why the universe looks older than they believe it is.
    Assuming cosmology is accurate about the distance of some stars, light must
    have taken several hundred thousand years to reach the Earth from those
    stars.  How could this happen if the universe was only 6,000 years old?

    Their answer is that light must have traveled *faster* in the past!  The
    speed of light must be gradually decreasing over the centuries.  This is of
    course a possibility, though it's very odd that no other evidence has been
    found to support it.  A very large part of physics is based on the hopeful
    notion that the speed of light is fixed in all time and space.  In fact, now
    I come to think of it, all of science without exception is founded on the
    idea that scientific laws are constant in all time and space, as long as
    conditions remain unchanged.  Accommodating this particular creationist
    hypothesis requires a noticeable bending of the entire framework of science.

    One answer to accommodating creationism in schools in past decades has been
    simply to leave a big gap in the scientific jigsaw puzzle where it would
    conflict with creationist doctrine.  The most glaring gap is in biology,
    where you can't afford to speak of evolution -- although evolution is one of
    the very foundations of biology.  Perhaps, as I discussed in the FILm SIG
    earlier, the idea of Things Turning Into Other Things is a frightening one
    for some.  But then you can't do much with geology either.  As soon as you
    get into how long it takes for a mountain range to erode, or continents to
    drift apart, you have to shut up.  Perhaps you can't afford to teach physics
    either, where topics like dating by radioactive decay and the constant speed
    of light may be regarded as heresy.

    Another solution proposed in the past was "equal time for creation science".

    Schools would teach "ten minutes of Darwin, and ten minutes of Creationism",
    as one critic put it.  Attempts were made to legislate this "two-model"
    approach in several states, including Arkansas and Louisiana.  These
    proposals seem to be dead at present, since the Supreme Court saw a
    suspicious similarity between the conclusions of "creation science" and
    certain well-known religious writings.

    I must confess to a slight twinge of regret when this happened.  It's not
    that I thought "equal time for creation science" was a good idea, if it
    would take time away from teaching *real* science.  I had a slight hope that
    if we let the creation scientists have their way, then they might stop
    complaining about the teaching of evolution in those same schools and we
    could fill in a knowledge gap that many children have been deprived of.  But
    the main reason was that I thought the results of the two-model approach
    might be unexpectedly amusing.

    The human mind has a wonderful capacity for doublethink.  Two completely
    opposite ideas can be held simultaneously in the mind for an indefinite
    period of time, as long as they're carefully separated from one another.
    Alcoholics, for example, are very good at this process of denial.  Even
    after numerous blackouts, car accidents, and other embarrassing incidents
    due to drink, they can persist in believing that drinking is not a problem
    to them.  But you don't have to be alcoholic or otherwise dysfunctional to
    practice denial.  I think everybody does it at times.

    The key to denial is to keep the two opposing ideas safely apart,
    compartmentalized in the mind.  Since so many people cling to creationism
    and suchlike doctrines, in spite of so much contradictory evidence, I'm sure
    they must be doing something like this.  They can see an item in a newspaper
    or magazine about evolution, and ignore it or pretend they didn't see it.
    Perhaps they can even take a school science examination and regurgitate
    facts that flatly contradict the possibility of creationism.  But as long as
    they can keep one story for the classroom and another for the church or
    everyday life, they can somehow avoid a real confrontation between the two.

    This isn't quite the same thing, but just a year or two ago I made some
    remark to my mother about evolution and she stared at me in astonishment.
    "What?" she said.  "You don't think we were descended from monkeys, do you?"

    (Well, no Mum, that's not actually what the theory of evolution *says*...
    but that was beside the point.)  I must have been just as astounded that she
    *didn't* believe in it as she seemed to be that I *did*.  The real surprise
    to me was not so much that we believed different things, but that in so many
    years we had never realized the existence of that conflict.

    I'd guess the result of teaching both theories side by side would be that
    more children would see that conflict, and would have to confront it there
    and then.  It would have to be resolved.  A championship fight can only have
    one winner, and the outcome might not be the one the creationists hoped for.

    Message: 81311
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: gold fever
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 03:11:25

    Honestly, I've just about had it up to here with all of this absolute crap
    about gold, is miraculous power to resist inflation, and its eternal value.

    Gold is no different from any other investment or commodity: you have to buy
    at the right time and sell at the right time.  You can't just buy it any
    time and salt it away in your vault and hope to keep up with inflation in
    any long-term, averaged sense.  I've got a stack of books about things which
    really interest me, but I'm this close to visiting the library to do a
    little research.  I think it might prove interesting to see how much (if at
    all) gold has risen in value in the last six months, and to see if its rise
    (if it has risen) even keeps up with inflation, much less provides as good
    an investment as an ordinary bank account.

    I'm also not going to stand for any of this "gold hasn't changed its value,
    the dollar has" crap either.  Sure, the dollar has changed in value, but so
    has gold, many times.  Perhaps I'll contrast the rise or fall of gold with
    the inverse and simultaneous behavior of another precious metal -- like
    silver.  The dollar can't go both ways at once, can it?

    The only thing which inhibits me at all is the certain knowledge that
    anything I find will be met with the same dogmatic obduracy as the fossil
    record is met with by creationists.  It's largely a waste of my time.
    And Rod -- if you want gold or silver, go a precious metals broker and buy
    it.

    Message: 81312
    Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 03:32:09

    Stop repeating yourself --- you said that in volume 666,901,258,003,242,437.

    Message: 81313
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: 1/1
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 03:38:27

    I've had requests for the other deleted message, so I decided to edit it
    too and post it again.  It is directed against one individual, but I've
    edited out the purely gratuitous and somewhat pointed remarks:

    He's a master of the specious argument.  But when you take the time and
    trouble to analyze what he's saying, and research his allegations, you
    quickly come to find that they don't hold water.  When you bring the glaring
    weak points in his arguments to his attention, he ignores them if he's able
    and drowns you out in insults and another two-dozen messages if he isn't.
    You may recall when we were discussing income tax.  First he claimed that
    there was no personal income tax until 1937, and claimed that the Sixteenth
    Amendment was not passed with the intent of laying personal income tax.
    When I pointed out that Congress passed the first personal income tax act
    the same year they passed the Sixteenth Amendment, he tried to pretend the
    act only applied to corporations.  When I quoted the act referring to the
    personal income of married and unmarried citizens, he changed his defense
    and tried to claim that he isn't a citizen of the United States.  When it
    was pointed out to him that he is a citizen of the United States according
    to the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, he whimsically picked certain
    words and redefined them to suit himself.  When this trick was pointed out
    to him, he became insulting and refused to continue the discussion.  After a
    suitable amount of time had passed, he pretended he had never been revealed
    and went back to grinding out the same old crap, ad infinitum.

    Message: 81314
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 03:44:18

    Oh, and Rod, I don't know what kind of conducting wire a cent would make if
    melted down, but take some copper wire with you next time you go to the
    grocery store and see if you can buy a loaf of bread with it.

    On the other hand, a dollar has no intrinsic value whatsoever.  But as Fred
    Smith has pointed out a billion times before, no one thinks it does!  It's
    only value is as a medium of exchange.  You can take your dollar and buy
    bread, or copper wire, or even GOLD.

    Message: 81315
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean/car sales
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 06:13:36

    You're probably right there, Dean. In which case, maybe we all better go
    back to bicycles. Only problem there would be that the former care salesmen
    would become bike salesmen. Just can't win, I guess.

    Message: 81316
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Gordon's party
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 06:18:45

     Your idea of a "people's" party has been tried, I think. It was called
    COmmunisim, and was tried in the former SOviet Union.
     It didn't work.

    Message: 81317
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: "intrinsic value"
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 07:01:43

    Speaking of so-called intrinsic value, gold has far less than is often
    suggested.  Gold is expensive primarily because it's rare and because it has
    a mystique about it.  If all the gold in the world were to disappear
    tomorrow, it would be a minor inconvenience, in terms of utilitarian loss.

    Copper, on the other hand, is an entirely different story.  It isn't rare,
    and it isn't pricey, but it's tremendously useful and employed universally.

    Gold clearly has its uses, no question about that, but its value is
    largely arbitrary; it derives from tradition and popular vanity.

    Message: 81318
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Matlock/Intrinsic
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 08:37:23

    value. Do you realize that Gold is God with "l" in the middle ? That must
    tell you something. Eh ? Eh ?

    Message: 81319
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Oh, well!
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 09:58:16

    BB> Uh, Andrew Jackson was the 7th President, Lincoln the 16th.

    Quite so.  Every once in awhile when I am extemporizing in an ad hoc manner,
    my daine bramage takes over and I get sequences out of sequence.  What I
    said is still true; it just happened in the correct order.  How's that for
    one step forward and two steps back?

    BB> And why did the banksters wait until AFTER the Civil War to assassinate
    BB> Lincoln?  It would seem to their advantage to kill him during the war,
    BB> placing the blame on a Southerner and further inflaming Union tempers.
    BB> In this way they might have prolonged the war, making it more likely
    BB> the Union would have to borrow to finance it.

    Good and pointed question.  I think it is likely that they had a different
    plan in mind at first, something that would have done a better job, but it
    didn't work out -- however, that is pure speculation.  The correct answer
    is, I don't know.  And in all fairness (why I should be fair to banksters, I
    don't know either) I have seen no conclusive evidence that the assassination
    of Lincoln was really a conspiratorial plot by the banksters as a group.  I
    have only seen evidence that one bankster hired the killer, and that the
    killer was a member of a troupe going around the country engaged in
    political proselytizing -- some would say political subversion -- toward
    what we today would call a "leftist" dogma, and that the troupe

    Message: 81320
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Same-same
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 09:59:01

    was well financed in that effort, and that while that dogma was
    superficially leftist it would have played directly into the banksters hands
    if assimilated by the people.

    All the above creates a very strong suspicion of general bankster
    involvement in the conspiracy to kill Lincoln, but is not conclusive in
    itself.  [Yo, Bill!  How's that for not being a True Believer?]

    The question might be, does it matter?  The results are the same.

    Message: 81321
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Agreement
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 10:00:17

    BD> There you go again, Archimedes.  I thought we'd agreed that we don't
    BD> *personally* owe debt because we're using FRNs, but that we (as
    BD> citizens and taxpayers) *jointly* owe debt because our government has
    BD> been borrowing money and issuing (inflationary) money.

    Well, then we need to further refine our "agreement."  First, we cannot
    "jointly" owe debt unless we individually owe debt, but set that aside a
    moment.  Secondly, the statement I made to which you are responding here is
    addressable on more than one level:  On the first level, no, we don't owe
    debt collectively because our gov't has been borrowing money and issuing
    inflationary money; we owe debt collectively because we "voluntarily" *use*
    that debt-money -- more specifically, we voluntarily *accept* that
    debt-money in exchange for our valuable labor.  Government likes to place
    the people in the position of having no other choice but starving, and then
    takes the position that what we do to avoid starving is done "voluntarily."
    But We, the People, having voluntarily accepted this debt-money into our
    lives, collectively owe the debt.

    On the second level, which is the level I was addressing when I made the
    statement to which you are responding, is that by voluntarily accepting this
    debt money into our lives we are voluntarily making ourselves individually
    liable for the collection of otherwise unlawful taxes -- which is the means
    employed to pay that debt.  (Or actually is the means employed
    to prevent hyper-inflation and only incidentally to pay that debt.)
    Therefore, yes, by voluntarily using those frns, we make ourselves liable
    individually for payment of that debt.

    The key word in all of this is "voluntarily."  We may not have any choice in
    the matter, but if we play along with it voluntarily and without making any
    effort at all to protect our individual inherited and unalienable rights,
    then they've got us.  On the other hand, if we exercise our right to object
    and protest and live our lives in a manner consistent with that to the
    extent humanly possible under the limited choices left to us, then we are
    doing what we have to do to stay alive, but because we are doing it under
    duress we are not "voluntarily" acquiring the debt.  Since the whole thing
    operates by equity contract, and one cannot be lawfully forced to contract,
    then we have grounds for refusing to fulfill the specific performance of the
    contract which we did not or do not voluntarily accept.  The whole thing is
    a "contract of adhesion" which does not adhere because we do not give
    informed consent to it.

    This is my opinion based upon my research.  I do not give legal advice.

    Message: 81323
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Politics
    Subject: State taxes
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 10:02:43

    BD> OK, so the federal government is acting illegally by taxing income.

    No, it is not.  The federal gov't is acting illegally by taxing *wages*.
    Income is profit.  Wages are fair exchange of labor for property.  Wages are
    not income, because wages are not profit.  [Actually, if this issue was ever
    resolved and we turned our attention to the legality of gov't taxing income
    (profit) I believe we would find gov't still acting illegally unless it only
    taxes profit generated in interstate transactions or the taxes imposed are
    properly apportioned among the States according to population, but we've
    never reached the point of addressing that issue.]

    BD> Do you pay (or think you should pay) state taxes on income/wages ?

    I believe the State has the lawful power to impose taxes on income (profit).
     I believe the State has no lawful power to impose a Capitation or other
    Direct tax, which a tax on wages would be.  In order to become and continue
    to function as a "State," State laws and State enforcement of laws must be
    consistent with the U. S. Constitution as well as its own Constitution.
    However, a State tax on wages, which is a Direct tax, *would* be legal if it
    were imposed for the purpose of collecting U.S. apportioned (according to
    population) Direct taxes.  Direct taxes imposed by the U.S. gov't are legal
    if apportioned.  However, if a State imposed a Direct tax as a result of
    being sent an apportioned invoice by the U.S.
    gov't, the argument could still be made that a tax on wages would not be
    lawful on the grounds that it is not apportioned at the State level -- i.e.,
    people who earned higher wages would be paying a disproportionately higher
    share of the tax.  In my view, the *only* lawful Direct tax would be a tax
    in which every man, woman, and child in the population paid exactly the same
    amount.

    BD> or do you think the 14th amendment (which I remember you saying might
    BD> not really have been ratified???) precludes the states from operating
    BD> in this manner?

    This question is a little confusing.  I did say that I suspected the 14th
    Amendment had not been ratified, but I *know* the 16th and 17th Amendments
    were not ratified.  However, had all three of these been ratified, I don't
    believe they convey any authority to State gov't's to do anything at all.

    All of the foregoing is my opinion based upon my research.  I do not give
    legal advice.

    Message: 81325
    Author: $ Archi Medes
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Eh-eh-eh-That's all,
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 10:04:36

    Folks!  Everyone relax.  No book-length manuscripts today.

    Message: 81327
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Matlock on gold
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 10:47:25

            I can remember when candy bars were a nickle.  Since then candy bars
    have gotten smaller and cost more.  It is not that the chocolate has gotten
    move valuable, it's that the frns have lost value.  Gold is the same way.
    If you are using frns to measure the value of gold, you are using the wrong
    medium.

            If you want to think this out and join in for the FUN of debate,
    please do so.  If you want to get nasty and angry, then please bud out!

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Message: 81328
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Paul/Party
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 12:07:40

    There isn't any true mechanism in the Communist party to guarantee that the
    wishes of the ordinary citizen are followed.  The whole problem in the
    Soviet Union has been that the Party *refused* to adopt changes that most
    ordinary citizens were demanding.  The problem with Soviet Communism is
    *exactly* the same as the problem with political parties elsewhere in the
    world: that the wishes of the ordinary members were filtered, watered down,
    and distorted by the oligarchy controlling the Party.  The results were far
    worse, and far more corrupt, than in a two-party system only because the
    Party had no competition at all.

    I deliberately avoided a title like "people's party" because of its strong
    associations with Communism.

    I forget who it was who pointed out that all the countries that have the
    word "Democratic" in their name, aren't.

    Message: 81329
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Sysop/Inflation
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 12:51:38

    There is nothing wrong with this as long as wages keep pace with inflation.
    If I was making $1.10 and hour as I was when I graduated from High School, I
    would be spitting mad. As it is, I am not, and I don't mind a little
    inflation.

    Message: 81330
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 15:50:01

    Rod Said >>>
    That's is how the government took us over.  They made it illegal to own
    coinage that had real value.  From that day we have been real economic
    slaves.

    FS>
    How are you an economic slave and how would coinage with
    "real value" change that?

    Message: 81331
    Author: $ Fred Smith
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: ARch
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 15:50:55

    Arch says>>

       Any logical conclusion reached from an argument based upon a false
    premise is going to be a false conclusion, and your conclusion is false.
    Had you allowed my post on "seigniorage" to sink in, you would have known
    it is not necessary to tax the people in order to buy the gold with which
    to mint the gold coins.

         SEIGNIORAGE:  A royalty or prerogative of the sovereign, whereby
         an allowance of gold and silver, brought to the mint in the mass
         to be exchanged for coin, is claimed.  Cowel.  Mintage, the charge
         for coining bullion into money at the mint.
                                    -- Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914)

    Fred Says>

       Who are you trying to fool??  Seingiorage and the whole "bring me a
    dollar and I'll give you a dollar" is a TAX pure and simple and if they
    aren't bringing enough "mass" to cover the amount of coins produced then
    they are using a fractional backing system of money.

       And even if they are NOT charged Seingiorage, they are STILL being TAXED
    at a 100% level anyways since they have to bring IN one "dollar" for every
    one "dollar" they leave with.

       There is NOTHING false about my premise and YOUR material quoted prior
    does nothing but CLEARLY and EMPHATICALLY reinforce EXACTLY what I said in
    my original posts.

       As long as the gvt sticks with whatever "backing level" they chose AND
    as long as people keep bringing in MORE "mass" to convert to money to
    support any economic expansion, things will not change.  But if mass gold
    becomes harder for the people to find and aquire and they stop bringing in
    enough then the money will DEFLATE and will NOT be stable.  Just like I
    said.

    Arch said >>
     Gov't therefore has an incentive to purchase more gold and/or
    silver and mint it into circulation, lest gov't go broke.

    Fred says>
      Now there's an interesting one!  The gvt taxes us one
    dollar to buy a dollars worth of gold so that they can mint
    it and turn it into one dollar!!!  I guess there really is a
    sucker born every minute!!

    Message: 81333
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Jury Duty
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 18:40:45

      The law of England will not allow you to part till you have given in your
    verdict.
      Jury: We have given in our verdict and we can give in no other.

      The jury asked for and was given pen and ink whereupon they retired
    again. They soon returned with this written verdict:
      William Penn to be guilty of speaking or preaching to an assembly, met
      together in Grace-Church Street, the 14 of August last 1670. And that
      William Mead is Not Guilty of the said indictment.

      Foreman Thomas Veer and the names of the others were on the verdict, the
    second being Bushell. The Recorder's reply was,
      Gentlemen, you shall not be dismissed till we have a verdict that the
    court will accept: and you shall be locked up, without meat, drink, fire,
    and tobacco; we shall have a verdict, by the help of God, or you shall
    starve for it.
      Penn then addressed the jurors, telling them that he and Mead had used no
    force of arms but had met outdoors because soldiers had kept them out of
    their houses. He also said,
      You are Englishmen, mind your privilege, give not away your right.
      Bushell and others: Nor will we ever do it.

      One juror now claimed to be indisposed and desired to be dismissed. The
    mayor, also a part of the bench, said 'You are as strong as any of them;
    starve them; and hold your principles.'

      This was on the third of September. It being time for court to close for
    the day, an observer (probably Penn) described the proceeding:
      The court swore several persons to keep the Jury all night without
      meat, drink, fire or any other accommodation; they had not so much as
      a chamberpot, though desired.

      The next day the jury returned a verdict finding Mead not guilty and Penn
    guilty of speaking in Grace-Church Street. The Recorder said he couldn't
    receive the verdict because the charge included conspiracy and the verdicts
    were inconsistent. Whereupon, Penn said,
      If Not Guilty be not a verdict, they you make the jury and Magna Carta
      but a mere nose of wax.

      The jury retired again and returned with the same verdict. This was once
    more turned down by the bench. On their part, the jury refused the
    suggestion that they return a special verdict. They were remanded to
    Newgate for the night. The following day, the fifth, the jury returned a
    verdict of not guilty as to both parties. It appears that the jury had been
    without food and drink in excess of two days.
      The Recorder fined the jury 40 marks each (a little over 26 pounds) and
    sent them to jail until it was paid. Penn was fined for contempt. He
    protested, citing passages of the Magna Carta. Penn also had the last word,
    saying later, 'Magna Carta is Magna f___ with the Recorder of London; and
    to demand right an affront to the court.'
      Bushell, on his part, didn't take the fine lying down. He obtained a
    writ of Habeas Corpus. The opinion was written on November 20th of the same
    year by Chief Justice Vaughan, and never after were juries to be punished
    for not finding in accordance with the court's instructions. The moment is
    marked for posterity by a plaque hanging in Old Bailey and inscribed as
    follows:
                  Near this site
           WILLIAM PENN and WILLIAM MEAD
                were tried in 1670
        for preaching to an unlawful assembly
               in Grace-Church Street
              This tablet Commemorates
    The courage and endurance of the Jury Thos Veer,
    Edward Bushell and ten others who refused to give
    a verdict against them, although locked up without
    food for two nights and were fined for their final
    Verdict of Not Guilty.

    The case of these Jurymen was reviewed on a Writ of
    Habeas Corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered
    the opinion of the Court with established 'The Right
    of Juries' to give their Verdict according to their
    Convictions.

       Because of these jurors and this decision, the jury deserved the high
    position it held in the esteem of Englishmen. In time to come, the jury was
    to lose much of its vitality in the county that had nurtured it. The
    Englishmen, however, who were at that very time settling the American
    colonies, carried with them from the earliest the jury as a guarantee of
    liberty. On that continent, the jury was to gain now life and new meaning."

    ---

    Beyond A Reasonable Doubt: Inside The American Jury System
      by Melvyn Bernard Zerman 1981

    JURY NULLIFICATION
      "Obviously, juries do not very often effectively repeal a law passed by a
    democratically elected legislature. But in what are sometimes called
    'political trials' - where the defendant's views on a controversial public
    issue assume an importance at least equal to the matter of his or her guilt
    - jury nullification of the law is not at all uncommon. During the Vietnam
    War, for example, men and women charged with destroying government property
    as part of their antiwar demonstrations were acquitted even though their
    burning of draft board records was beyond question. That jurors, in the
    face of decisive evidence to the contrary, should render not-guilty
    verdicts is a stunning commentary on the jury system."
      "When jurors deliver a not-guilty verdict, they have shut a final door on
    the case, shut it and sealed it forever."

    DIRECTED VERDICTS
      "Indeed, if the judge has concluded that the verdict must be not guilty
    because of the evidence (or lack of it), he may actually halt the trial at
    this point and either dismiss all the charges or impose on the jury what is
    known as a directed verdict of acquittal. A directed verdict can never be a
    guilty verdict: the jury alone must reach that decision."

    ---

    A History of American Law
     by Lawrence M. Friedman 1973, 1985

    JURY NULLIFICATION
      "A system of criminal justice is more than rules on paper. It is also a
    plan for distribution of power among judges, jurors, legislators, and
    others. In American legal theory, jury power was enormous and subject to
    few controls. There was a maxim of law that the jury was judge of both law
    and of fact in criminal cases. This idea was particularly strong in the
    first, Revolutionary generation, when memories of royal justice were fresh.

    In some states the rule lasted a long time, and in Maryland, the slogan was
    actually imbedded in the constitution. But the rule came under savage
    attack from some judges and other authorities. There was fear that the
    rule, if taken seriously, would destroy the 'chances of uniformity of
    adjudication.' It also threatened the power of judges. By the end of the
    period, many states, by statute or decision, had repudiated the doctrine.
      In any event, it is not easy to tell what the maxim meant in practice.
    Juries did not divide their verdicts into separate bundles of fact and of
    law. The maxim did recognize explicitly that the jury held ultimate power
    to make decisions about crime and criminal law. Juries were not afraid to
    exercise this power. In South Carolina, according to Jack K. Williams, 'the
    same jury which would change a murderer's indictment to manslaughter would
    condemn a common thief to the gallows without hesitation,' if so inclined.
    On the other hand, the jury could be quite cavalier about the letter of the
    law, not to mention the facts of the world. In State v. Bennet (1815), a
    South Carolina jury found as fact that the goods John Bennet had stolen
    were worth 'less...than twelve pence,' even though all the witnesses had
    sworn they were 'of much greater value.' This 'pious perjury' let the jury
    find Bennet guilty of petty larceny, rather than grand larceny, which would
    have sent him to the gallows. The appeal court affirmed the jury's right to
    do as it pleased. This same process had made some of the crimes on
    England's long list of capital crimes less fierce than they seemed. This
    type of behavior has been called jury lawlessness; but there is something
    strange in pinning the label of 'lawless' on a power so carefully and
    explicitly built into the law. Jury power meant that a measure of penal
    'reform' could take place without formal change in legal institutions.
    Jerome Hall has suggested that, as social attitudes toward criminals and
    crime begin to change, the changes first appear in the administration of
    criminal justice; penal 'reform'--enacted laws and new rules--follows as a
    'ratification of practices' already developed."
      (Final note from Dean, those who support the current status quo, where
    jurors are routinely mislead into voting for convictions they do not
    entirely support, seem to rely mainly on two arguments. One is that the
    system of laws will suffer if the jury is free to 'interpret' the law and
    the other is that uniformity of trial results will suffer if juries know
    they do not have to follow instructions which would force them to convict
    someone who does not deserve it. Both arguments give short shrift to the
    strengths of the jury system and its history in actual practice.
      Why does a jury occasionally reach a verdict opposite that which the
    judge would have returned? There are several factors a jury can and will
    consider in addition to simple evidence, but which the judge and the law
    may not consider. Is the punishment the law calls for upon conviction too
    severe for the acts the defendant committed under the circumstances of this
    particular case? Has the defendant already suffered enough, either through
    the legal system or as a result of the crime itself? Has the defendant been
    singled out for prosecution under a law which is seldom enforced? Has the
    defendant been singled out for prosecution due to some other conflict with
    those bringing the charges? Was the defendant induced by undercover police
    to commit a crime that would not have occured otherwise? In general, is the
    enforcing of the letter of this law in this particular case a greater wrong
    than not enforcing it? This jury power to temper the law with justice does
    not create any precedent which must be followed in later cases under the
    same law. It does not affect the letter of the law as it may be applied to
    other cases or even to the case at hand, it only provides that greater
    circumstances may be taken into consideration on a case by case basis and
    this overall view may result in an acquittal in the face of the law. Over
    an extended period a pattern may emerge where overall circumstances weigh
    against convictions under a certain law, and if injustice in that law
    itself is the reason, then the jury has fulfilled an important mission
    intended for it by the nation's founders in stemming that injustice.
      Uniformity of adjudication is neither a lofty goal nor a practical one.
    Trial results should not automatically be uniform because no two cases are
    exactly the same. The cold, calculating eye of the law may see them all the
    same and expect convictions in every case where a proscribed act is shown
    to have occured, but the jury learns much more about the people and events
    involved than is shown in the charges, and it should use all this
    information to reach an informed verdict which is as unique as the case at
    hand. Let us remember that what the judges are doing in the name of
    uniformity is denying to the jury the knowledge that they don't have to
    convict when it is wrong to do so, and yet, what kind of value to judges
    put on uniformity in their own sphere of operations? Bare majorities are
    the rule rather than the exception whenever a panel of judges make a
    decision. Nearly as many judges dissent as concur and judicial decisions
    are routinely overturned on appeal with essentially the same case being
    presented.
      Judicial observers who are truly concerned that legislation is rewritten
    during trials, and that results are not uniform, would do well to note that
    the force behind these things is often a judge, rather than a jury. The
    deception of our juries concerning their power to refuse an unjust
    conviction is more about reserving unintended power to judges than it is
    about protecting the sanctity of the law or the rights of defendants.)

    Message: 81343
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 19:45:28

    Re:  And that is exactly why my children will not attend public school as I
    had to

    I can relate to that.  We pulled our three sons out of grade school at an
    early age for the same reason.  The oldest boy (15) now goes to Apollo High
    School, but his two brothers still go to a private Christian school.

    Message: 81344
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: SysOp Cliff
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 21:48:45

    I was being peevish, not nasty.

    Let's see...candy bars cost a nickel, and now they cost more.  True.  We
    also get paid more.  But really, if you apply the same reasoning to
    chocolate that you apply to gold, one is forced to the conclusion that
    chocolate is as good an investment as gold.  After all, it's value is
    eternal.

    Matter of fact, in a post-apocalyptic world, I think chocolate would only be
    second to tobacco (and possibly, alcohol, and nylons) in value, unlike gold,
    which would have little or no barter value (who cares about plating their PC
    board leads when they don't even know whether they'll live the year out?)

    Maybe we should call for a Chocolate Standard.  In fact, we could please
    both parties by adopting those coin-shaped chocolates covered with gold foil
    which one finds at the cashier's desk of so many Mexican food restaurants.

    Message: 81345
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Matlock/last
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 22:33:50

    Chocolate is not eternal...  just leave some on the dash board of your car
    next summer.

            It has pretty much been a fact that Gold has been a *precious* metal
    thoughout history of mankind.  It was long before man needed it to plate
    their PC board leads.  I also am not talking about INVESTING in gold, but
    getting paid wages in gold/silver.  Money earned is a way of storing labor
    given and should be redeemable at a later date for the SAME value. Unlike
    Green, I don't buy his *little* inflation as acceptable.  My labor today
    should be worth the same 20 years from now if I save my earned wages. I
    should not be required to do anything else to make it so.

            I am puzzled why so many of you seem so satisfied in getting paid in
    worthless FRNs, and not minding that they will lose value rather quickly or
    not minding to place these in a bank and pay taxes on the interest that does
    not even keep up with inflation at times.  By time you withdraw to spend
    them, they won't buy nearly what they would have a few years earlier.  I
    guess you people don't value your labor given for these FRNs.

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Message: 81346
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fred?
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 22:40:28

            I don't understand how you think we would pay taxes to buy gold when
    the mere minting of gold is value added.  A million dollars of gold bullion
    turns out more than a million dollars in coin.  And that covers the minting
    costs.  The Government does not buy the bullion to keep it in some safe, but
    to pay it right out again as value added coin.

            Think about it!

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Message: 81347
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: gold value
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 22:43:49

    Look at it this way:  Let's say I have certain amount of frns.  I can buy
    that much gold at its current price or I can buy stock, or buy some
    real-estate, or put it into the bank, or whatever.  Now, if gold drops in
    value, but some other commodity or investment doesn't, you can't say that
    gold hasn't dropped in value, because I can buy the same amount of the other
    stuff as I could before, with the same amount of frns; but you can't trade
    the same amount of gold for those things, even if people were willing to
    accept gold as payment, because they would check on the price of gold and
    see that you were short.   If you insisted that your gold was worth more,
    they'd tell you to go and find somebody who would believe that.

    On the other hand, if your gold increases in value, but those other goods
    cost the same amount of frns., then your gold really has increased in value,
    because you can take it and trade it for more goods, or equivalently,
    exchange it for its current value in frns. and buy more goods than you could
    with the previous frn. equivalent of that amount of gold.

    The point of all of this is that there is no God determined value of gold.
    Gold is worth what you can get for it, just like anything else, including
    frns., whether you get things indirectly through frns., or directly through
    barter.  But don't expect anyone to give you more for gold than its frn.
    value, because they would have to be crazy.  And you would be crazy to take
    less for your gold than its frn. value if someone tried to argue that your
    gold hasn't increased in value but that frns have decreased.

    Message: 81349
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: gold vs. frns.
    Date: 01/07/92  Time: 23:15:30

    I have no more economic love of frns. than I do of gold.  Gold can be an
    excellent investment, but like any other, only if you buy and sell at the
    right time.  If I put some money in a bank and collect interest (not a
    terribly good investment if using an ordinary account), then in the next six
    months inflation will take a very small toll (at least, by current inflation
    rates).  Any tax I might have to pay on interest is going to be fractional.
    Therefore, I have managed to stay ahead of inflation, though I haven't put
    my money to very good use.

    Now, if gold during that six month period increases in value in excess of
    what my net interest provides after taxes and depreciation, then gold is the
    superior investment.  On the other hand, if gold loses value, or is just
    stable, or doesn't increase in value fast enough, then my bank account
    provides a better hedge against inflation.  I think that it is just this
    speculative nature of precious metals investment which makes people
    reluctant to depend on it, though of course a shrewd person can, as with any
    other venture, get a high return if the market goes the way he thinks it
    will.

    Message: 81350
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: James Matlock / gold
    Date: 01/08/92  Time: 00:40:01

    I don't want to carry around or store gold, silver or copper.  But having it
    would get me further than worthless pieces of paper.  If the citizens
    decided to go on the barter system then gold would be pretty much at the top
    of the heap althought diamonds and some other metals have this real value
    also that numbered government FRNs seem to lack.

    By having FRNs it and using them we are inviting the government in on
    everything we do.

    By the way, I'll trade you 3 bushels of fresh corn for that extra bicycle
    rim and tire.

    After having lost all of our precious and semi-precious metals we are
    beholden to the government that issues worthless paper FRNs that have no
    value unto themselves - not like gold and silver have.  We are controlled.
    Make one error on your tax form and you will be put in for an audit.  You
    will have to account for every last FRN.  And then you may discover that you
    owe more FRNs or that you were penalized for making an error.  Someone has
    to pay for that audit, it AIN'T free.

    Love and peace,

                                    Rod

    Message: 81351
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Fred/slave
    Date: 01/08/92  Time: 00:52:32

    If the people had equal control over the dollar supply then government would
    be forced to take an equal seat.  Government, by eliminating something of
    value to back our money supply has suckered us in and now has control.

    Ask Felix Cat how we are economic slaves.  A while back he posted how much
    his tax base was.  With FRNs the government is not your partner, it is the
    Chairman of the Board and you are the worker.  With barter using items of
    real value, be it tobacco or condoms, one can better control his economic
    destiny.

    Thanks for the question.  If I haven't made myself clear please let me know
    because this 'enlightenment' is new to me and has not completely jelled.
    I'll understand better by Spring.  Perhaps I will go the other way, to
    the FRNs but I kinda doubt it after realizing just what control government
    has using their numbered paper.

    Still, I may be missing something.  We'll see.

    Message: 81352
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gold/James
    Date: 01/08/92  Time: 01:02:24

    Would it have been just as easy for the moon landing if we used copper for
    the wiring instead of gold?  I don't think so.  One can take a small chunk
    of gold and smash it out into quite a large surface without any rips or
    tears.

    Chocolate has value like you say.  Whether it has more value than gold is
    difficult to say.  But both have bartering power and that is what I guess I
    am talking about, something that has real value that can be traded, not a
    I.O.U. with serial numbers that involves a third party dictating the
    transaction.  Savvy my friend or am I all wet?

    No matter which way I believe or which way Archemedes or Fred Smith believes
    we are not doing it with evil in our hearts, only a longing to know 'how
    things work.'  That is all I am interested in knowing because that
    information is useful in the everyday world.

    Message: 81353
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Comment
    Date: 1/8/92  Time: 1:10:32

    Tonight I have 67K of new information and I still haven't read the juicy
    articles from last night.  Some look really interesting.  I've been busy.

    I find it interesting that whenever someone suggests that the human race lay
    aside their differences and live and work in peace for a better planet that
    there is always a comment that suggests Communism.  I mean, it could be real
    but disavowed because of some prior bias.  I guess this generation has to be
    wiped off the face of the earth before a new breed can make real brotherhood
    work for the benefit of all.

    Message: 81354
    Author: James Matlock
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 01/08/92  Time: 01:37:31

    I think you're confusing government interference and power with the medium
    of exchange.  And once again, you're free to buy gold or silver or bushels
    of corn with those "worthless pieces of paper."  In a post-apocalyptic
    barter system,  the value of gold would drop dramatically.  So would the
    value of diamonds, at least the kind of diamonds they make into baubles.
    When you pay DeBeers thousands of dollars for a stone whose only purpose is
    to indulge the vanity of the bearer, you're not getting intrinsic value.
    Crush that diamond into dust, use it to make cutting tools or playing
    needles or what have you, and it has intrinic value.  Yet that value is far
    less that what you paid for the gem.

    Gold likewise has intrinsic value.  It resists oxidation.  It is a decent
    electrical conductor (about 70% as good as copper).  It is very dense and
    very malleable, qualities which give it utilitarian value.  But the
    difference between gold's intrinsic value and its market value is very
    great.  Its market value derives from traditional aesthetic sensibilities.
    Gold, however, is different from diamond in that there is no difference
    between "industrial gold" and "jewelry gold" unless that difference is one
    of purity.  You can easily get around that.  You can't, however, take
    diamond dust and make a flawless gemstone.  Now, if you think about gold's
    actual intrinsic value based on useful qualities, it is very clear that,
    while it has value, that value is much less than what its market value is.
    That's because people love the stuff and are willing to pay through the
    nose for it.

    As you say, gold is more malleable than copper and that makes it good for
    certain things.  But gold is not the only malleable element, and it is not
    common enough to be useful in the way that copper is.  I don't understand
    what special NASA equipment has to do with the common man.  If every piece
    of gold in your house disappeared tomorrow (most of it is jewelry and you
    MAY have a little in some of your electronic equipment) you would not be
    inconvenienced one bit.  But if the copper in your house disappeared
    tomorrow, you would be in trouble.  It permeates your house and your
    appliances, your fixtures and machines and ordinary useful items.  THAT, my
    friend, is intrinsic value, as opposed to market value.

    Steel is another example of something with intrinsic value.  You can build
    cars, trucks, farm equipment, tools, skyscrapers, ships, and all kinds of
    things with it (including guns to protect you and your family, if desired).
    Try doing that with gold.  Yes, gold is useful for certain applications, but
    its intrinsic value is being highly overrated.

Content of this site is © Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.