On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:36:39 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:38:58 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>On 11/30/2023 2:54 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:12:07 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:13:42 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, libertarianism means different things to different people, just
>>>> like liberal, conservative, socailist, and communist. For me,
>>>> liberalism simply means a very limited government and laissez-faire
>>>> economics.
>>>
>>> Laissez-faire economics would, I think, require reliance on something
>>> other then a currency supported by the libertarian government. Hard to
>>> borrow money if the lender doesn't know what you might be doing
>>> tomorrow. Maybe the gold standard? But that would mean that your
>>> currency would fluctuate in value almost daily
>>
>>That's backwards.
>>
>>Under a gold standard, currency is pegged to gold which is
>>to say stable. Under the preset fiat system, currencies
>>fluctuate ( mostly inflate) while gold of course does not.
>
>Yeah, that's what I was thinking but I wasn't sure enough to say
>it....

But the value of gold versus any currency isn't a constant. In 1933
the owning of gold, in the U.S. became a crime punishable by 10 years
in prison and all gold was required to be handed over to the
government at a value of $20.67/ounce. Immediately upon grabbing all
the gold that the 20 dollar rate the government declared that gold was
worth $35.00 an ounce. And today it is what? $2,041?

When I mentioned "gold standard" I was referring to the use of actual
gold coinage but even that wouldn't be an absolute value as hoarding
and industrial use would likely effect availability.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:38:58 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 11/30/2023 2:54 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:12:07 -0500, Catrike Rider
>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:13:42 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>
>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>
>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>
>>> Yes, libertarianism means different things to different people, just
>>> like liberal, conservative, socailist, and communist. For me,
>>> liberalism simply means a very limited government and laissez-faire
>>> economics.
>>
>> Laissez-faire economics would, I think, require reliance on something
>> other then a currency supported by the libertarian government. Hard to
>> borrow money if the lender doesn't know what you might be doing
>> tomorrow. Maybe the gold standard? But that would mean that your
>> currency would fluctuate in value almost daily
>
>That's backwards.
>
>Under a gold standard, currency is pegged to gold which is
>to say stable. Under the preset fiat system, currencies
>fluctuate ( mostly inflate) while gold of course does not.

Actually gold "value" must vary, independent of sales, due to increase
or decrease in volume produced, cost of production, demand by industry
and so on. Whether this change in costs is sufficient to effect the
"retail" price is a totally different story, of course.

But, what is the "cost" of gold? Using hourly salary for example, in
1933 it was in the $0.45/hour range and as of 2022 $34.00/hour (or at
least the Internet tells me that). Gold in the U.S. was decreed in
1933 to be $65/oz in 1933 and today is $2041/oz.

But salaries have increased 75 times over the years while gold has
increased only 58 times. In hours of work then gold cost 144.4 hours
of work in 1933 and today it costs 60.0 hours of work.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 11/30/2023 4:59 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:40:08 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2023 3:43 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 15:54:47 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:12:07 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:13:42 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, libertarianism means different things to different people, just
>>>>> like liberal, conservative, socailist, and communist. For me,
>>>>> liberalism simply means a very limited government and laissez-faire
>>>>> economics.
>>>>
>>>> Laissez-faire economics would, I think, require reliance on something
>>>> other then a currency supported by the libertarian government. Hard to
>>>> borrow money if the lender doesn't know what you might be doing
>>>> tomorrow.
>>>
>>> Huh? I've never had a lender who knew what I was going to do
>>> "tomorrow." Often, I don't even know what I'm going to do tomorrow.
>>>
>>>> Maybe the gold standard? But that would mean that your
>>>> currency would fluctuate in value almost daily
>>
>> +1
>
> Actually, if you look at the voter standards, in fact all of the
> standards, laid down in the original documents the U.S. was designed
> to have a very viable governmental system.
> And then along came the Supreme court :-(
>
> Disregarding any moral standings Roe -Wade ruling that the 14th
> amendment implies privacy...
>
> The 14th amendment states that " No State shall make or enforce any
> law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
> the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
> liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
> person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
>

'Privacy' is not written, as Justice Ginsberg (who argued
the original case) noted later. It's only in the 'eminences
from the penumbras', in other words some Justices' personal
political will. Roe was wrongly decided, since overturned,
as a matter of law. Policy is an entirely different realm,
as it ought to be:

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 11/30/2023 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:36:39 -0500, Catrike Rider
> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:38:58 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/30/2023 2:54 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:12:07 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:13:42 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, libertarianism means different things to different people, just
>>>>> like liberal, conservative, socailist, and communist. For me,
>>>>> liberalism simply means a very limited government and laissez-faire
>>>>> economics.
>>>>
>>>> Laissez-faire economics would, I think, require reliance on something
>>>> other then a currency supported by the libertarian government. Hard to
>>>> borrow money if the lender doesn't know what you might be doing
>>>> tomorrow. Maybe the gold standard? But that would mean that your
>>>> currency would fluctuate in value almost daily
>>>
>>> That's backwards.
>>>
>>> Under a gold standard, currency is pegged to gold which is
>>> to say stable. Under the preset fiat system, currencies
>>> fluctuate ( mostly inflate) while gold of course does not.
>>
>> Yeah, that's what I was thinking but I wasn't sure enough to say
>> it....
>
> But the value of gold versus any currency isn't a constant. In 1933
> the owning of gold, in the U.S. became a crime punishable by 10 years
> in prison and all gold was required to be handed over to the
> government at a value of $20.67/ounce. Immediately upon grabbing all
> the gold that the 20 dollar rate the government declared that gold was
> worth $35.00 an ounce. And today it is what? $2,041?
>
> When I mentioned "gold standard" I was referring to the use of actual
> gold coinage but even that wouldn't be an absolute value as hoarding
> and industrial use would likely effect availability.

An actual gold standard specifies currency per troy ounce.
Once an administration inflates beyond gold redemption atthe
stated rate, the currency is 'broken'. As has happened,
repeatedly.

FDR's fiat devaluation is outside a 'gold standard' or logic
or law or good policy.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 11/30/2023 6:43 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:38:58 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2023 2:54 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:12:07 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:13:42 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, libertarianism means different things to different people, just
>>>> like liberal, conservative, socailist, and communist. For me,
>>>> liberalism simply means a very limited government and laissez-faire
>>>> economics.
>>>
>>> Laissez-faire economics would, I think, require reliance on something
>>> other then a currency supported by the libertarian government. Hard to
>>> borrow money if the lender doesn't know what you might be doing
>>> tomorrow. Maybe the gold standard? But that would mean that your
>>> currency would fluctuate in value almost daily
>>
>> That's backwards.
>>
>> Under a gold standard, currency is pegged to gold which is
>> to say stable. Under the preset fiat system, currencies
>> fluctuate ( mostly inflate) while gold of course does not.
>
>
> Actually gold "value" must vary, independent of sales, due to increase
> or decrease in volume produced, cost of production, demand by industry
> and so on. Whether this change in costs is sufficient to effect the
> "retail" price is a totally different story, of course.
>
> But, what is the "cost" of gold? Using hourly salary for example, in
> 1933 it was in the $0.45/hour range and as of 2022 $34.00/hour (or at
> least the Internet tells me that). Gold in the U.S. was decreed in
> 1933 to be $65/oz in 1933 and today is $2041/oz.
>
> But salaries have increased 75 times over the years while gold has
> increased only 58 times. In hours of work then gold cost 144.4 hours
> of work in 1933 and today it costs 60.0 hours of work.

All of which reflects devaluation of the US Dollar, not a
change in actual value or in gold.

Increased/decreased mining production, or
increased/decreased hoarding or increased/decreased jewelry
sales or increased/decreased central banks buying or selling
of gold are statistically insignificant to world gold
reserves/value.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:14:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 11/29/2023 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>
>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>
>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>> feelings.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>
>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>
>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>
>
>You may have misstated that.
>
>Use of deadly force in defense is legal in most
>jurisdictions with a credible threat to human life, yours or
>others. Deadly force in the case of simple theft is almost
>always indefensible.

I think we are talking about two different thing. You appear to be
talking about existing U.S. laws and I was talking about an
explanation of "libertarianism" that I read.

>Most people believe capital punishment for murder is
>reasonable and apt in principle. Many are troubled by inept
>or corrupt prosecutions, which are common enough to
>undermine support of capital punishment in practice.

The problem here is that you are dealing with human beings who aren't
perfect, so, as in any other human endeavors, there are bound to be
errors. Which isn't an excuse but a statement of fact.

But, by the same token I believe that in crimes like the Manson
Murders, for example, execution would have been the proper penalty.

And, it might be noted that as of 2020 nearly 1/4 of all those
imprisoned for "violent Crimes" were for murder. Some 157,000.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 11/30/2023 7:26 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:14:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2023 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>
>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>> feelings.
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>
>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>
>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>
>>
>> You may have misstated that.
>>
>> Use of deadly force in defense is legal in most
>> jurisdictions with a credible threat to human life, yours or
>> others. Deadly force in the case of simple theft is almost
>> always indefensible.
>
> I think we are talking about two different thing. You appear to be
> talking about existing U.S. laws and I was talking about an
> explanation of "libertarianism" that I read.
>
>> Most people believe capital punishment for murder is
>> reasonable and apt in principle. Many are troubled by inept
>> or corrupt prosecutions, which are common enough to
>> undermine support of capital punishment in practice.
>
> The problem here is that you are dealing with human beings who aren't
> perfect, so, as in any other human endeavors, there are bound to be
> errors. Which isn't an excuse but a statement of fact.
>
> But, by the same token I believe that in crimes like the Manson
> Murders, for example, execution would have been the proper penalty.
>
> And, it might be noted that as of 2020 nearly 1/4 of all those
> imprisoned for "violent Crimes" were for murder. Some 157,000.
>

I don't know any libertarians who would disagree with that
delineation. 'Threat to human life' is very much different
from a property loss[1]. Do you know any country where they
overlap or conflict in this regard?

The (maybe apocryphal. I don't know) 'hanging for horse
thieves' hinges on the importance of a horse for survival in
semi arid unsettled expanses. Otherwise I can't think of an
example and I'm not even sure this is one.

[1] See US and Common Law distinction between theft or
burglary or fraud' as opposed to robbery. They really are
different.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:12:18 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 11/30/2023 4:59 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:40:08 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/30/2023 3:43 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 15:54:47 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:12:07 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:13:42 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, libertarianism means different things to different people, just
>>>>>> like liberal, conservative, socailist, and communist. For me,
>>>>>> liberalism simply means a very limited government and laissez-faire
>>>>>> economics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Laissez-faire economics would, I think, require reliance on something
>>>>> other then a currency supported by the libertarian government. Hard to
>>>>> borrow money if the lender doesn't know what you might be doing
>>>>> tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>> Huh? I've never had a lender who knew what I was going to do
>>>> "tomorrow." Often, I don't even know what I'm going to do tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the gold standard? But that would mean that your
>>>>> currency would fluctuate in value almost daily
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> Actually, if you look at the voter standards, in fact all of the
>> standards, laid down in the original documents the U.S. was designed
>> to have a very viable governmental system.
>> And then along came the Supreme court :-(
>>
>> Disregarding any moral standings Roe -Wade ruling that the 14th
>> amendment implies privacy...
>>
>> The 14th amendment states that " No State shall make or enforce any
>> law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
>> the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
>> liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
>> person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
>>
>
>'Privacy' is not written, as Justice Ginsberg (who argued
>the original case) noted later. It's only in the 'eminences
>from the penumbras', in other words some Justices' personal
>political will. Roe was wrongly decided, since overturned,
>as a matter of law. Policy is an entirely different realm,
>as it ought to be:
>
>https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/

As I've noted the Washington people have "bought" the states.
Illinois' state budget is about 25% Federal funds.
https://ballotpedia.org/Total_state_government_expenditures
and if the Feds are going to give you money then you have to toe their
line.

Years ago I was working on a job with some people from Montana,or one
of those western places, who was telling me about how the state had
received some sort of federal funds for the highways and as a result
had to change every traffic sign in the state to meet federal
Standards.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:23:40 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 11/30/2023 6:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:38:58 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/30/2023 2:54 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:12:07 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:13:42 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, libertarianism means different things to different people, just
>>>>> like liberal, conservative, socailist, and communist. For me,
>>>>> liberalism simply means a very limited government and laissez-faire
>>>>> economics.
>>>>
>>>> Laissez-faire economics would, I think, require reliance on something
>>>> other then a currency supported by the libertarian government. Hard to
>>>> borrow money if the lender doesn't know what you might be doing
>>>> tomorrow. Maybe the gold standard? But that would mean that your
>>>> currency would fluctuate in value almost daily
>>>
>>> That's backwards.
>>>
>>> Under a gold standard, currency is pegged to gold which is
>>> to say stable. Under the preset fiat system, currencies
>>> fluctuate ( mostly inflate) while gold of course does not.
>>
>>
>> Actually gold "value" must vary, independent of sales, due to increase
>> or decrease in volume produced, cost of production, demand by industry
>> and so on. Whether this change in costs is sufficient to effect the
>> "retail" price is a totally different story, of course.
>>
>> But, what is the "cost" of gold? Using hourly salary for example, in
>> 1933 it was in the $0.45/hour range and as of 2022 $34.00/hour (or at
>> least the Internet tells me that). Gold in the U.S. was decreed in
>> 1933 to be $65/oz in 1933 and today is $2041/oz.
>>
>> But salaries have increased 75 times over the years while gold has
>> increased only 58 times. In hours of work then gold cost 144.4 hours
>> of work in 1933 and today it costs 60.0 hours of work.
>
>
>All of which reflects devaluation of the US Dollar, not a
>change in actual value or in gold.
>

Yes, certainly correct. But how do you set a value on gold?

>Increased/decreased mining production, or
>increased/decreased hoarding or increased/decreased jewelry
>sales or increased/decreased central banks buying or selling
>of gold are statistically insignificant to world gold
>reserves/value.

As I asked above how do you establish this "value"? Or rather,
perhaps, denote this "value"?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 11/30/2023 8:11 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:12:18 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2023 4:59 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:40:08 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/30/2023 3:43 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 15:54:47 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:12:07 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:13:42 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, libertarianism means different things to different people, just
>>>>>>> like liberal, conservative, socailist, and communist. For me,
>>>>>>> liberalism simply means a very limited government and laissez-faire
>>>>>>> economics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Laissez-faire economics would, I think, require reliance on something
>>>>>> other then a currency supported by the libertarian government. Hard to
>>>>>> borrow money if the lender doesn't know what you might be doing
>>>>>> tomorrow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? I've never had a lender who knew what I was going to do
>>>>> "tomorrow." Often, I don't even know what I'm going to do tomorrow.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe the gold standard? But that would mean that your
>>>>>> currency would fluctuate in value almost daily
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>
>>> Actually, if you look at the voter standards, in fact all of the
>>> standards, laid down in the original documents the U.S. was designed
>>> to have a very viable governmental system.
>>> And then along came the Supreme court :-(
>>>
>>> Disregarding any moral standings Roe -Wade ruling that the 14th
>>> amendment implies privacy...
>>>
>>> The 14th amendment states that " No State shall make or enforce any
>>> law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
>>> the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
>>> liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
>>> person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
>>>
>>
>> 'Privacy' is not written, as Justice Ginsberg (who argued
>> the original case) noted later. It's only in the 'eminences
>>from the penumbras', in other words some Justices' personal
>> political will. Roe was wrongly decided, since overturned,
>> as a matter of law. Policy is an entirely different realm,
>> as it ought to be:
>>
>> https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/
>
> As I've noted the Washington people have "bought" the states.
> Illinois' state budget is about 25% Federal funds.
> https://ballotpedia.org/Total_state_government_expenditures
> and if the Feds are going to give you money then you have to toe their
> line.
>
> Years ago I was working on a job with some people from Montana,or one
> of those western places, who was telling me about how the state had
> received some sort of federal funds for the highways and as a result
> had to change every traffic sign in the state to meet federal
> Standards.

In more truthful parts of the world, they say, "If you eat
the sultan's bread, you swing the sultan's sword."
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 11/30/2023 8:24 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:23:40 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2023 6:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:38:58 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/30/2023 2:54 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:12:07 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:13:42 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, libertarianism means different things to different people, just
>>>>>> like liberal, conservative, socailist, and communist. For me,
>>>>>> liberalism simply means a very limited government and laissez-faire
>>>>>> economics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Laissez-faire economics would, I think, require reliance on something
>>>>> other then a currency supported by the libertarian government. Hard to
>>>>> borrow money if the lender doesn't know what you might be doing
>>>>> tomorrow. Maybe the gold standard? But that would mean that your
>>>>> currency would fluctuate in value almost daily
>>>>
>>>> That's backwards.
>>>>
>>>> Under a gold standard, currency is pegged to gold which is
>>>> to say stable. Under the preset fiat system, currencies
>>>> fluctuate ( mostly inflate) while gold of course does not.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually gold "value" must vary, independent of sales, due to increase
>>> or decrease in volume produced, cost of production, demand by industry
>>> and so on. Whether this change in costs is sufficient to effect the
>>> "retail" price is a totally different story, of course.
>>>
>>> But, what is the "cost" of gold? Using hourly salary for example, in
>>> 1933 it was in the $0.45/hour range and as of 2022 $34.00/hour (or at
>>> least the Internet tells me that). Gold in the U.S. was decreed in
>>> 1933 to be $65/oz in 1933 and today is $2041/oz.
>>>
>>> But salaries have increased 75 times over the years while gold has
>>> increased only 58 times. In hours of work then gold cost 144.4 hours
>>> of work in 1933 and today it costs 60.0 hours of work.
>>
>>
>> All of which reflects devaluation of the US Dollar, not a
>> change in actual value or in gold.
>>
>
> Yes, certainly correct. But how do you set a value on gold?
>
>> Increased/decreased mining production, or
>> increased/decreased hoarding or increased/decreased jewelry
>> sales or increased/decreased central banks buying or selling
>> of gold are statistically insignificant to world gold
>> reserves/value.
>
> As I asked above how do you establish this "value"? Or rather,
> perhaps, denote this "value"?
>

One does not.
Everything else is valued at some factor of gold.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:20:04 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 11/30/2023 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:36:39 -0500, Catrike Rider
>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:38:58 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/30/2023 2:54 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:12:07 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:13:42 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, libertarianism means different things to different people, just
>>>>>> like liberal, conservative, socailist, and communist. For me,
>>>>>> liberalism simply means a very limited government and laissez-faire
>>>>>> economics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Laissez-faire economics would, I think, require reliance on something
>>>>> other then a currency supported by the libertarian government. Hard to
>>>>> borrow money if the lender doesn't know what you might be doing
>>>>> tomorrow. Maybe the gold standard? But that would mean that your
>>>>> currency would fluctuate in value almost daily
>>>>
>>>> That's backwards.
>>>>
>>>> Under a gold standard, currency is pegged to gold which is
>>>> to say stable. Under the preset fiat system, currencies
>>>> fluctuate ( mostly inflate) while gold of course does not.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's what I was thinking but I wasn't sure enough to say
>>> it....
>>
>> But the value of gold versus any currency isn't a constant. In 1933
>> the owning of gold, in the U.S. became a crime punishable by 10 years
>> in prison and all gold was required to be handed over to the
>> government at a value of $20.67/ounce. Immediately upon grabbing all
>> the gold that the 20 dollar rate the government declared that gold was
>> worth $35.00 an ounce. And today it is what? $2,041?
>>
>> When I mentioned "gold standard" I was referring to the use of actual
>> gold coinage but even that wouldn't be an absolute value as hoarding
>> and industrial use would likely effect availability.
>
>An actual gold standard specifies currency per troy ounce.
>Once an administration inflates beyond gold redemption atthe
>stated rate, the currency is 'broken'. As has happened,
>repeatedly.
>

Sort of. It is actually a bit more involved but the price of gold is
established by the Comex (CME) in the United States, and the London
Bullion Market Association (LBMA) in the UK. One assumes in U.S.
Dollars and Pounds Sterling. Which indirectly set the international
value of U.S. and British currency.
https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/index/gold/who-sets-the-price-of-gold/

Whether this "international value" is good or bad is dependent on many
things. Indonesia, for example, deliberately devalued their currency
versus the U.S. dollar by declaring each day what the Central Bank
would buy dollars for. The logic was that Indonesia had large
international debts denoted in Rupiah and the government's major
source of income, at the time, was oil which was traded in dollars.

>FDR's fiat devaluation is outside a 'gold standard' or logic
>or law or good policy.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:44:41 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 11/30/2023 7:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:14:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2023 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>
>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>
>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> You may have misstated that.
>>>
>>> Use of deadly force in defense is legal in most
>>> jurisdictions with a credible threat to human life, yours or
>>> others. Deadly force in the case of simple theft is almost
>>> always indefensible.
>>
>> I think we are talking about two different thing. You appear to be
>> talking about existing U.S. laws and I was talking about an
>> explanation of "libertarianism" that I read.
>>
>>> Most people believe capital punishment for murder is
>>> reasonable and apt in principle. Many are troubled by inept
>>> or corrupt prosecutions, which are common enough to
>>> undermine support of capital punishment in practice.
>>
>> The problem here is that you are dealing with human beings who aren't
>> perfect, so, as in any other human endeavors, there are bound to be
>> errors. Which isn't an excuse but a statement of fact.
>>
>> But, by the same token I believe that in crimes like the Manson
>> Murders, for example, execution would have been the proper penalty.
>>
>> And, it might be noted that as of 2020 nearly 1/4 of all those
>> imprisoned for "violent Crimes" were for murder. Some 157,000.
>>
>
>I don't know any libertarians who would disagree with that
>delineation. 'Threat to human life' is very much different
>from a property loss[1]. Do you know any country where they
>overlap or conflict in this regard?

Sort of.

Here if you rush into a Gold Store waving a firearm and demand that
they give you their gold there is a pretty good chance that the owner
may pull out a gun and shoot you.
https://tinyurl.com/yeyvmc5u
and as reported in the news that seems to be a legal thing to do.
I assume that the rational is that as you have the ability to shoot
that it is perfectly all right for the owner to shoot first.

The same applies to waving a gun at a Cop. He and any buddies he has
present Will blow you away.

>The (maybe apocryphal. I don't know) 'hanging for horse
>thieves' hinges on the importance of a horse for survival in
>semi arid unsettled expanses. Otherwise I can't think of an
>example and I'm not even sure this is one.

Actually horse stealing was a serious crime even in the East. In 1780,
Pennsylvania passed "An Act to Increase the Punishments of Horse
Stealing"

>[1] See US and Common Law distinction between theft or
>burglary or fraud' as opposed to robbery. They really are
>different.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 20:31:56 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 11/30/2023 8:24 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:23:40 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/30/2023 6:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:38:58 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/30/2023 2:54 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:12:07 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:13:42 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, libertarianism means different things to different people, just
>>>>>>> like liberal, conservative, socailist, and communist. For me,
>>>>>>> liberalism simply means a very limited government and laissez-faire
>>>>>>> economics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Laissez-faire economics would, I think, require reliance on something
>>>>>> other then a currency supported by the libertarian government. Hard to
>>>>>> borrow money if the lender doesn't know what you might be doing
>>>>>> tomorrow. Maybe the gold standard? But that would mean that your
>>>>>> currency would fluctuate in value almost daily
>>>>>
>>>>> That's backwards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Under a gold standard, currency is pegged to gold which is
>>>>> to say stable. Under the preset fiat system, currencies
>>>>> fluctuate ( mostly inflate) while gold of course does not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually gold "value" must vary, independent of sales, due to increase
>>>> or decrease in volume produced, cost of production, demand by industry
>>>> and so on. Whether this change in costs is sufficient to effect the
>>>> "retail" price is a totally different story, of course.
>>>>
>>>> But, what is the "cost" of gold? Using hourly salary for example, in
>>>> 1933 it was in the $0.45/hour range and as of 2022 $34.00/hour (or at
>>>> least the Internet tells me that). Gold in the U.S. was decreed in
>>>> 1933 to be $65/oz in 1933 and today is $2041/oz.
>>>>
>>>> But salaries have increased 75 times over the years while gold has
>>>> increased only 58 times. In hours of work then gold cost 144.4 hours
>>>> of work in 1933 and today it costs 60.0 hours of work.
>>>
>>>
>>> All of which reflects devaluation of the US Dollar, not a
>>> change in actual value or in gold.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, certainly correct. But how do you set a value on gold?
>>
>>> Increased/decreased mining production, or
>>> increased/decreased hoarding or increased/decreased jewelry
>>> sales or increased/decreased central banks buying or selling
>>> of gold are statistically insignificant to world gold
>>> reserves/value.
>>
>> As I asked above how do you establish this "value"? Or rather,
>> perhaps, denote this "value"?
>>
>
>One does not.
>Everything else is valued at some factor of gold.

Ah... O.K. Gold is the fundamental value. But how do you establish the
amount of currency to buy X amount of gold.

Same horse, just going the other way :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 10:24:43 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:44:41 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>On 11/30/2023 7:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:14:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/2023 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You may have misstated that.
>>>>
>>>> Use of deadly force in defense is legal in most
>>>> jurisdictions with a credible threat to human life, yours or
>>>> others. Deadly force in the case of simple theft is almost
>>>> always indefensible.
>>>
>>> I think we are talking about two different thing. You appear to be
>>> talking about existing U.S. laws and I was talking about an
>>> explanation of "libertarianism" that I read.
>>>
>>>> Most people believe capital punishment for murder is
>>>> reasonable and apt in principle. Many are troubled by inept
>>>> or corrupt prosecutions, which are common enough to
>>>> undermine support of capital punishment in practice.
>>>
>>> The problem here is that you are dealing with human beings who aren't
>>> perfect, so, as in any other human endeavors, there are bound to be
>>> errors. Which isn't an excuse but a statement of fact.
>>>
>>> But, by the same token I believe that in crimes like the Manson
>>> Murders, for example, execution would have been the proper penalty.
>>>
>>> And, it might be noted that as of 2020 nearly 1/4 of all those
>>> imprisoned for "violent Crimes" were for murder. Some 157,000.
>>>
>>
>>I don't know any libertarians who would disagree with that
>>delineation. 'Threat to human life' is very much different
>>from a property loss[1]. Do you know any country where they
>>overlap or conflict in this regard?
>
>Sort of.
>
>Here if you rush into a Gold Store waving a firearm and demand that
>they give you their gold there is a pretty good chance that the owner
>may pull out a gun and shoot you.
>https://tinyurl.com/yeyvmc5u
>and as reported in the news that seems to be a legal thing to do.
>I assume that the rational is that as you have the ability to shoot
>that it is perfectly all right for the owner to shoot first.

If the waving of a gun is percieved as a threat, it can justify the
shooting.

>The same applies to waving a gun at a Cop. He and any buddies he has
>present Will blow you away.
>
>>The (maybe apocryphal. I don't know) 'hanging for horse
>>thieves' hinges on the importance of a horse for survival in
>>semi arid unsettled expanses. Otherwise I can't think of an
>>example and I'm not even sure this is one.
>
>Actually horse stealing was a serious crime even in the East. In 1780,
>Pennsylvania passed "An Act to Increase the Punishments of Horse
>Stealing"
>
>>[1] See US and Common Law distinction between theft or
>>burglary or fraud' as opposed to robbery. They really are
>>different.

On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 03:06:29 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 10:24:43 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:44:41 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On 11/30/2023 7:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:14:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/29/2023 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You may have misstated that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Use of deadly force in defense is legal in most
>>>>> jurisdictions with a credible threat to human life, yours or
>>>>> others. Deadly force in the case of simple theft is almost
>>>>> always indefensible.
>>>>
>>>> I think we are talking about two different thing. You appear to be
>>>> talking about existing U.S. laws and I was talking about an
>>>> explanation of "libertarianism" that I read.
>>>>
>>>>> Most people believe capital punishment for murder is
>>>>> reasonable and apt in principle. Many are troubled by inept
>>>>> or corrupt prosecutions, which are common enough to
>>>>> undermine support of capital punishment in practice.
>>>>
>>>> The problem here is that you are dealing with human beings who aren't
>>>> perfect, so, as in any other human endeavors, there are bound to be
>>>> errors. Which isn't an excuse but a statement of fact.
>>>>
>>>> But, by the same token I believe that in crimes like the Manson
>>>> Murders, for example, execution would have been the proper penalty.
>>>>
>>>> And, it might be noted that as of 2020 nearly 1/4 of all those
>>>> imprisoned for "violent Crimes" were for murder. Some 157,000.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know any libertarians who would disagree with that
>>>delineation. 'Threat to human life' is very much different
>>>from a property loss[1]. Do you know any country where they
>>>overlap or conflict in this regard?
>>
>>Sort of.
>>
>>Here if you rush into a Gold Store waving a firearm and demand that
>>they give you their gold there is a pretty good chance that the owner
>>may pull out a gun and shoot you.
>>https://tinyurl.com/yeyvmc5u
>>and as reported in the news that seems to be a legal thing to do.
>>I assume that the rational is that as you have the ability to shoot
>>that it is perfectly all right for the owner to shoot first.
>
>If the waving of a gun is percieved as a threat, it can justify the
>shooting.

Here it isn't so much a matter of perceived, it seems to be a matter
of the ability to do it. If, for example, if you have a gun in your
pocket the police might arrest you and charge you if you didn't have a
license to carry a gun, but if you were holding the gun in your hand
they would almost certainly shoot.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 17:34:16 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 03:06:29 -0500, Catrike Rider
><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 10:24:43 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:44:41 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 11/30/2023 7:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:14:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may have misstated that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Use of deadly force in defense is legal in most
>>>>>> jurisdictions with a credible threat to human life, yours or
>>>>>> others. Deadly force in the case of simple theft is almost
>>>>>> always indefensible.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we are talking about two different thing. You appear to be
>>>>> talking about existing U.S. laws and I was talking about an
>>>>> explanation of "libertarianism" that I read.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most people believe capital punishment for murder is
>>>>>> reasonable and apt in principle. Many are troubled by inept
>>>>>> or corrupt prosecutions, which are common enough to
>>>>>> undermine support of capital punishment in practice.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem here is that you are dealing with human beings who aren't
>>>>> perfect, so, as in any other human endeavors, there are bound to be
>>>>> errors. Which isn't an excuse but a statement of fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, by the same token I believe that in crimes like the Manson
>>>>> Murders, for example, execution would have been the proper penalty.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, it might be noted that as of 2020 nearly 1/4 of all those
>>>>> imprisoned for "violent Crimes" were for murder. Some 157,000.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't know any libertarians who would disagree with that
>>>>delineation. 'Threat to human life' is very much different
>>>>from a property loss[1]. Do you know any country where they
>>>>overlap or conflict in this regard?
>>>
>>>Sort of.
>>>
>>>Here if you rush into a Gold Store waving a firearm and demand that
>>>they give you their gold there is a pretty good chance that the owner
>>>may pull out a gun and shoot you.
>>>https://tinyurl.com/yeyvmc5u
>>>and as reported in the news that seems to be a legal thing to do.
>>>I assume that the rational is that as you have the ability to shoot
>>>that it is perfectly all right for the owner to shoot first.
>>
>>If the waving of a gun is percieved as a threat, it can justify the
>>shooting.
>
> Here it isn't so much a matter of perceived, it seems to be a matter
>of the ability to do it. If, for example, if you have a gun in your
>pocket the police might arrest you and charge you if you didn't have a
>license to carry a gun, but if you were holding the gun in your hand
>they would almost certainly shoot.

In most cases in the USA, perception is a major factor. One must be
able to demonstrate, presumably to a jury of his peers, that his
percieved fear of eminent bodily harm was logical, even if there was
no actual jeopardy. In other words, if you point a realistic toy gun
at someone there is sufficient justification for them to shoot you.

On 11/30/2023 8:57 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:20:04 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2023 6:12 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:36:39 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:38:58 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/30/2023 2:54 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:12:07 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:13:42 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, libertarianism means different things to different people, just
>>>>>>> like liberal, conservative, socailist, and communist. For me,
>>>>>>> liberalism simply means a very limited government and laissez-faire
>>>>>>> economics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Laissez-faire economics would, I think, require reliance on something
>>>>>> other then a currency supported by the libertarian government. Hard to
>>>>>> borrow money if the lender doesn't know what you might be doing
>>>>>> tomorrow. Maybe the gold standard? But that would mean that your
>>>>>> currency would fluctuate in value almost daily
>>>>>
>>>>> That's backwards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Under a gold standard, currency is pegged to gold which is
>>>>> to say stable. Under the preset fiat system, currencies
>>>>> fluctuate ( mostly inflate) while gold of course does not.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that's what I was thinking but I wasn't sure enough to say
>>>> it....
>>>
>>> But the value of gold versus any currency isn't a constant. In 1933
>>> the owning of gold, in the U.S. became a crime punishable by 10 years
>>> in prison and all gold was required to be handed over to the
>>> government at a value of $20.67/ounce. Immediately upon grabbing all
>>> the gold that the 20 dollar rate the government declared that gold was
>>> worth $35.00 an ounce. And today it is what? $2,041?
>>>
>>> When I mentioned "gold standard" I was referring to the use of actual
>>> gold coinage but even that wouldn't be an absolute value as hoarding
>>> and industrial use would likely effect availability.
>>
>> An actual gold standard specifies currency per troy ounce.
>> Once an administration inflates beyond gold redemption atthe
>> stated rate, the currency is 'broken'. As has happened,
>> repeatedly.
>>
>
> Sort of. It is actually a bit more involved but the price of gold is
> established by the Comex (CME) in the United States, and the London
> Bullion Market Association (LBMA) in the UK. One assumes in U.S.
> Dollars and Pounds Sterling. Which indirectly set the international
> value of U.S. and British currency.
> https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/index/gold/who-sets-the-price-of-gold/
>
> Whether this "international value" is good or bad is dependent on many
> things. Indonesia, for example, deliberately devalued their currency
> versus the U.S. dollar by declaring each day what the Central Bank
> would buy dollars for. The logic was that Indonesia had large
> international debts denoted in Rupiah and the government's major
> source of income, at the time, was oil which was traded in dollars.
>
>
>> FDR's fiat devaluation is outside a 'gold standard' or logic
>> or law or good policy.
>

The London gold price establishes the current value of
currencies, not gold.

Yes, central banks periodically lose large sums in efforts
to support a devalued (inflated) currency or in severe
disruptions such as war or natural disasters:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/07/world/middleeast/shekel-dollar-bank-of-israel.html

The alternate method, a currency board, has a better track
record:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency_board.asp

but can be overwhelmed in exegeses.

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 11/30/2023 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:44:41 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2023 7:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:14:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/2023 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You may have misstated that.
>>>>
>>>> Use of deadly force in defense is legal in most
>>>> jurisdictions with a credible threat to human life, yours or
>>>> others. Deadly force in the case of simple theft is almost
>>>> always indefensible.
>>>
>>> I think we are talking about two different thing. You appear to be
>>> talking about existing U.S. laws and I was talking about an
>>> explanation of "libertarianism" that I read.
>>>
>>>> Most people believe capital punishment for murder is
>>>> reasonable and apt in principle. Many are troubled by inept
>>>> or corrupt prosecutions, which are common enough to
>>>> undermine support of capital punishment in practice.
>>>
>>> The problem here is that you are dealing with human beings who aren't
>>> perfect, so, as in any other human endeavors, there are bound to be
>>> errors. Which isn't an excuse but a statement of fact.
>>>
>>> But, by the same token I believe that in crimes like the Manson
>>> Murders, for example, execution would have been the proper penalty.
>>>
>>> And, it might be noted that as of 2020 nearly 1/4 of all those
>>> imprisoned for "violent Crimes" were for murder. Some 157,000.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know any libertarians who would disagree with that
>> delineation. 'Threat to human life' is very much different
>>from a property loss[1]. Do you know any country where they
>> overlap or conflict in this regard?
>
> Sort of.
>
> Here if you rush into a Gold Store waving a firearm and demand that
> they give you their gold there is a pretty good chance that the owner
> may pull out a gun and shoot you.
> https://tinyurl.com/yeyvmc5u
> and as reported in the news that seems to be a legal thing to do.
> I assume that the rational is that as you have the ability to shoot
> that it is perfectly all right for the owner to shoot first.
>
> The same applies to waving a gun at a Cop. He and any buddies he has
> present Will blow you away.
>
>> The (maybe apocryphal. I don't know) 'hanging for horse
>> thieves' hinges on the importance of a horse for survival in
>> semi arid unsettled expanses. Otherwise I can't think of an
>> example and I'm not even sure this is one.
>
> Actually horse stealing was a serious crime even in the East. In 1780,
> Pennsylvania passed "An Act to Increase the Punishments of Horse
> Stealing"
>
>> [1] See US and Common Law distinction between theft or
>> burglary or fraud' as opposed to robbery. They really are
>> different.

Regarding Gold Store, my point exactly, thanks.
A robbery (strongarm or with a weapon) is not simple theft.

Pointing a weapon at a policeman is an assault, no argument
there.

Regarding Pennsylvania in 1780, public lashing is not a
capital execution. May even improve the morals of a thief.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 11/30/2023 9:32 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 20:31:56 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2023 8:24 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:23:40 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/30/2023 6:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:38:58 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/30/2023 2:54 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:12:07 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:13:42 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, libertarianism means different things to different people, just
>>>>>>>> like liberal, conservative, socailist, and communist. For me,
>>>>>>>> liberalism simply means a very limited government and laissez-faire
>>>>>>>> economics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Laissez-faire economics would, I think, require reliance on something
>>>>>>> other then a currency supported by the libertarian government. Hard to
>>>>>>> borrow money if the lender doesn't know what you might be doing
>>>>>>> tomorrow. Maybe the gold standard? But that would mean that your
>>>>>>> currency would fluctuate in value almost daily
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's backwards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Under a gold standard, currency is pegged to gold which is
>>>>>> to say stable. Under the preset fiat system, currencies
>>>>>> fluctuate ( mostly inflate) while gold of course does not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually gold "value" must vary, independent of sales, due to increase
>>>>> or decrease in volume produced, cost of production, demand by industry
>>>>> and so on. Whether this change in costs is sufficient to effect the
>>>>> "retail" price is a totally different story, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, what is the "cost" of gold? Using hourly salary for example, in
>>>>> 1933 it was in the $0.45/hour range and as of 2022 $34.00/hour (or at
>>>>> least the Internet tells me that). Gold in the U.S. was decreed in
>>>>> 1933 to be $65/oz in 1933 and today is $2041/oz.
>>>>>
>>>>> But salaries have increased 75 times over the years while gold has
>>>>> increased only 58 times. In hours of work then gold cost 144.4 hours
>>>>> of work in 1933 and today it costs 60.0 hours of work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All of which reflects devaluation of the US Dollar, not a
>>>> change in actual value or in gold.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, certainly correct. But how do you set a value on gold?
>>>
>>>> Increased/decreased mining production, or
>>>> increased/decreased hoarding or increased/decreased jewelry
>>>> sales or increased/decreased central banks buying or selling
>>>> of gold are statistically insignificant to world gold
>>>> reserves/value.
>>>
>>> As I asked above how do you establish this "value"? Or rather,
>>> perhaps, denote this "value"?
>>>
>>
>> One does not.
>> Everything else is valued at some factor of gold.
>
> Ah... O.K. Gold is the fundamental value. But how do you establish the
> amount of currency to buy X amount of gold.
>
> Same horse, just going the other way :-)

See the daily London rate (for interbank transactions in
large lots) or the display at your neighborhood gold store:

https://www.goldenchennai.com/finance/images/gold/gold-rate-in-pattaya.gif

for retail rate.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 12/1/2023 4:34 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 03:06:29 -0500, Catrike Rider
> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 10:24:43 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:44:41 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/30/2023 7:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:14:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may have misstated that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Use of deadly force in defense is legal in most
>>>>>> jurisdictions with a credible threat to human life, yours or
>>>>>> others. Deadly force in the case of simple theft is almost
>>>>>> always indefensible.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we are talking about two different thing. You appear to be
>>>>> talking about existing U.S. laws and I was talking about an
>>>>> explanation of "libertarianism" that I read.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most people believe capital punishment for murder is
>>>>>> reasonable and apt in principle. Many are troubled by inept
>>>>>> or corrupt prosecutions, which are common enough to
>>>>>> undermine support of capital punishment in practice.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem here is that you are dealing with human beings who aren't
>>>>> perfect, so, as in any other human endeavors, there are bound to be
>>>>> errors. Which isn't an excuse but a statement of fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, by the same token I believe that in crimes like the Manson
>>>>> Murders, for example, execution would have been the proper penalty.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, it might be noted that as of 2020 nearly 1/4 of all those
>>>>> imprisoned for "violent Crimes" were for murder. Some 157,000.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know any libertarians who would disagree with that
>>>> delineation. 'Threat to human life' is very much different
>>> >from a property loss[1]. Do you know any country where they
>>>> overlap or conflict in this regard?
>>>
>>> Sort of.
>>>
>>> Here if you rush into a Gold Store waving a firearm and demand that
>>> they give you their gold there is a pretty good chance that the owner
>>> may pull out a gun and shoot you.
>>> https://tinyurl.com/yeyvmc5u
>>> and as reported in the news that seems to be a legal thing to do.
>>> I assume that the rational is that as you have the ability to shoot
>>> that it is perfectly all right for the owner to shoot first.
>>
>> If the waving of a gun is percieved as a threat, it can justify the
>> shooting.
>
> Here it isn't so much a matter of perceived, it seems to be a matter
> of the ability to do it. If, for example, if you have a gun in your
> pocket the police might arrest you and charge you if you didn't have a
> license to carry a gun, but if you were holding the gun in your hand
> they would almost certainly shoot.

As they should.

Unlicensed carry is different from armed assault.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 5:12:27 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 11/30/2023 4:59 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:40:08 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/30/2023 3:43 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 15:54:47 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 03:12:07 -0500, Catrike Rider
> >>>> <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 09:13:42 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
> >>>>>> <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
> >>>>>>>>>> <sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
> >>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
> >>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
> >>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
> >>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
> >>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
> >>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
> >>>>>>>>>> leadership?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
> >>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
> >>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
> >>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
> >>>>>>> feelings.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
> >>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
> >>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
> >>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, libertarianism means different things to different people, just
> >>>>> like liberal, conservative, socailist, and communist. For me,
> >>>>> liberalism simply means a very limited government and laissez-faire
> >>>>> economics.
> >>>>
> >>>> Laissez-faire economics would, I think, require reliance on something
> >>>> other then a currency supported by the libertarian government. Hard to
> >>>> borrow money if the lender doesn't know what you might be doing
> >>>> tomorrow.
> >>>
> >>> Huh? I've never had a lender who knew what I was going to do
> >>> "tomorrow." Often, I don't even know what I'm going to do tomorrow.
> >>>
> >>>> Maybe the gold standard? But that would mean that your
> >>>> currency would fluctuate in value almost daily
> >>
> >> +1
> >
> > Actually, if you look at the voter standards, in fact all of the
> > standards, laid down in the original documents the U.S. was designed
> > to have a very viable governmental system.
> > And then along came the Supreme court :-(
> >
> > Disregarding any moral standings Roe -Wade ruling that the 14th
> > amendment implies privacy...
> >
> > The 14th amendment states that " No State shall make or enforce any
> > law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
> > the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
> > liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
> > person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
> >
> 'Privacy' is not written, as Justice Ginsberg (who argued
> the original case) noted later. It's only in the 'eminences
> from the penumbras', in other words some Justices' personal
> political will. Roe was wrongly decided, since overturned,
> as a matter of law. Policy is an entirely different realm,
> as it ought to be:
>
> https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Just think that if Slocomb's parents had the same ideas that he has he would never made it past the fetus stage/

fOn Fri, 1 Dec 2023 08:06:26 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 11/30/2023 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:44:41 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/30/2023 7:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:14:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/29/2023 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You may have misstated that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Use of deadly force in defense is legal in most
>>>>> jurisdictions with a credible threat to human life, yours or
>>>>> others. Deadly force in the case of simple theft is almost
>>>>> always indefensible.
>>>>
>>>> I think we are talking about two different thing. You appear to be
>>>> talking about existing U.S. laws and I was talking about an
>>>> explanation of "libertarianism" that I read.
>>>>
>>>>> Most people believe capital punishment for murder is
>>>>> reasonable and apt in principle. Many are troubled by inept
>>>>> or corrupt prosecutions, which are common enough to
>>>>> undermine support of capital punishment in practice.
>>>>
>>>> The problem here is that you are dealing with human beings who aren't
>>>> perfect, so, as in any other human endeavors, there are bound to be
>>>> errors. Which isn't an excuse but a statement of fact.
>>>>
>>>> But, by the same token I believe that in crimes like the Manson
>>>> Murders, for example, execution would have been the proper penalty.
>>>>
>>>> And, it might be noted that as of 2020 nearly 1/4 of all those
>>>> imprisoned for "violent Crimes" were for murder. Some 157,000.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know any libertarians who would disagree with that
>>> delineation. 'Threat to human life' is very much different
>>>from a property loss[1]. Do you know any country where they
>>> overlap or conflict in this regard?
>>
>> Sort of.
>>
>> Here if you rush into a Gold Store waving a firearm and demand that
>> they give you their gold there is a pretty good chance that the owner
>> may pull out a gun and shoot you.
>> https://tinyurl.com/yeyvmc5u
>> and as reported in the news that seems to be a legal thing to do.
>> I assume that the rational is that as you have the ability to shoot
>> that it is perfectly all right for the owner to shoot first.
>>
>> The same applies to waving a gun at a Cop. He and any buddies he has
>> present Will blow you away.
>>
>>> The (maybe apocryphal. I don't know) 'hanging for horse
>>> thieves' hinges on the importance of a horse for survival in
>>> semi arid unsettled expanses. Otherwise I can't think of an
>>> example and I'm not even sure this is one.
>>
>> Actually horse stealing was a serious crime even in the East. In 1780,
>> Pennsylvania passed "An Act to Increase the Punishments of Horse
>> Stealing"
>>
>>> [1] See US and Common Law distinction between theft or
>>> burglary or fraud' as opposed to robbery. They really are
>>> different.
>
>Regarding Gold Store, my point exactly, thanks.
>A robbery (strongarm or with a weapon) is not simple theft.r
>
>Pointing a weapon at a policeman is an assault, no argument
>there.
>
>Regarding Pennsylvania in 1780, public lashing is not a
>capital execution. May even improve the morals of a thief.

Well it was a bit more severe then a simple whipping. First time
offenders were given 39 lashes, then had their ears cut off and nailed
to the pillory, where they had to stand for an hour. A second offense
added branding of the forehead with an ‘H” and a ‘T.” :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 08:11:53 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 12/1/2023 4:34 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 03:06:29 -0500, Catrike Rider
>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 10:24:43 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:44:41 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/30/2023 7:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:14:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may have misstated that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Use of deadly force in defense is legal in most
>>>>>>> jurisdictions with a credible threat to human life, yours or
>>>>>>> others. Deadly force in the case of simple theft is almost
>>>>>>> always indefensible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we are talking about two different thing. You appear to be
>>>>>> talking about existing U.S. laws and I was talking about an
>>>>>> explanation of "libertarianism" that I read.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most people believe capital punishment for murder is
>>>>>>> reasonable and apt in principle. Many are troubled by inept
>>>>>>> or corrupt prosecutions, which are common enough to
>>>>>>> undermine support of capital punishment in practice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem here is that you are dealing with human beings who aren't
>>>>>> perfect, so, as in any other human endeavors, there are bound to be
>>>>>> errors. Which isn't an excuse but a statement of fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, by the same token I believe that in crimes like the Manson
>>>>>> Murders, for example, execution would have been the proper penalty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, it might be noted that as of 2020 nearly 1/4 of all those
>>>>>> imprisoned for "violent Crimes" were for murder. Some 157,000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know any libertarians who would disagree with that
>>>>> delineation. 'Threat to human life' is very much different
>>>> >from a property loss[1]. Do you know any country where they
>>>>> overlap or conflict in this regard?
>>>>
>>>> Sort of.
>>>>
>>>> Here if you rush into a Gold Store waving a firearm and demand that
>>>> they give you their gold there is a pretty good chance that the owner
>>>> may pull out a gun and shoot you.
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/yeyvmc5u
>>>> and as reported in the news that seems to be a legal thing to do.
>>>> I assume that the rational is that as you have the ability to shoot
>>>> that it is perfectly all right for the owner to shoot first.
>>>
>>> If the waving of a gun is percieved as a threat, it can justify the
>>> shooting.
>>
>> Here it isn't so much a matter of perceived, it seems to be a matter
>> of the ability to do it. If, for example, if you have a gun in your
>> pocket the police might arrest you and charge you if you didn't have a
>> license to carry a gun, but if you were holding the gun in your hand
>> they would almost certainly shoot.
>
>As they should.
>
>Unlicensed carry is different from armed assault.

But (based in the news I read) in the U.S. people would be marching in
the streets shouting "Police Brutality" while here the gold shop
owner, while perhaps not viewed as a national hero is certainly not
regarded as having done anything really outrageous.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12/1/2023 4:46 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 08:11:53 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 12/1/2023 4:34 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 03:06:29 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 10:24:43 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:44:41 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/30/2023 7:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 10:14:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:31:15 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:46:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2023 3:36 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 11:38:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:12:58 -0500, Catrike Rider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could sit down with Obama over a beer and have some pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, but I'd damned well never vote for him. On the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand, I'd reject any opportinity to sit down and converse with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet it looks like I might be voting for him
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting problem. If you want a fearless strong leader, who will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "make America great again", and lead you to a promised utopia, Trump
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that person. However, I seem to recall that you have an aversion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to someone telling you what to do. Would you really follow Trump's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't plan on him telling me what to do. I'm hoping for a "leader"
>>>>>>>>>>>> that I can ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OK but if everyone ignores him, maybe we should redefine
>>>>>>>>>>> 'leadership'?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping that people who would do harm to others will not be able to
>>>>>>>>>> ignore our "leaders". I'm talking about real "harm" not just hurt
>>>>>>>>>> feelings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking of libertarianism. "Small L"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I had to look that up and it seems to say that it means many
>>>>>>>>> different things. One example, I read, was "it is wrong for the
>>>>>>>>> government to execute an individual for stealing but correct for an
>>>>>>>>> individual to protect himself by shooting someone who steals from him"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems rather confused to me :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You may have misstated that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Use of deadly force in defense is legal in most
>>>>>>>> jurisdictions with a credible threat to human life, yours or
>>>>>>>> others. Deadly force in the case of simple theft is almost
>>>>>>>> always indefensible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we are talking about two different thing. You appear to be
>>>>>>> talking about existing U.S. laws and I was talking about an
>>>>>>> explanation of "libertarianism" that I read.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most people believe capital punishment for murder is
>>>>>>>> reasonable and apt in principle. Many are troubled by inept
>>>>>>>> or corrupt prosecutions, which are common enough to
>>>>>>>> undermine support of capital punishment in practice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem here is that you are dealing with human beings who aren't
>>>>>>> perfect, so, as in any other human endeavors, there are bound to be
>>>>>>> errors. Which isn't an excuse but a statement of fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, by the same token I believe that in crimes like the Manson
>>>>>>> Murders, for example, execution would have been the proper penalty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, it might be noted that as of 2020 nearly 1/4 of all those
>>>>>>> imprisoned for "violent Crimes" were for murder. Some 157,000.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know any libertarians who would disagree with that
>>>>>> delineation. 'Threat to human life' is very much different
>>>>> >from a property loss[1]. Do you know any country where they
>>>>>> overlap or conflict in this regard?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sort of.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here if you rush into a Gold Store waving a firearm and demand that
>>>>> they give you their gold there is a pretty good chance that the owner
>>>>> may pull out a gun and shoot you.
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/yeyvmc5u
>>>>> and as reported in the news that seems to be a legal thing to do.
>>>>> I assume that the rational is that as you have the ability to shoot
>>>>> that it is perfectly all right for the owner to shoot first.
>>>>
>>>> If the waving of a gun is percieved as a threat, it can justify the
>>>> shooting.
>>>
>>> Here it isn't so much a matter of perceived, it seems to be a matter
>>> of the ability to do it. If, for example, if you have a gun in your
>>> pocket the police might arrest you and charge you if you didn't have a
>>> license to carry a gun, but if you were holding the gun in your hand
>>> they would almost certainly shoot.
>>
>> As they should.
>>
>> Unlicensed carry is different from armed assault.
>
> But (based in the news I read) in the U.S. people would be marching in
> the streets shouting "Police Brutality" while here the gold shop
> owner, while perhaps not viewed as a national hero is certainly not
> regarded as having done anything really outrageous.

Brandishing a weapon is a threat:

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/police-shoot-man-armed-with-hatchet-in-sun-valley/
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971