In an email conversation with investor relations I was led to believe that this may indeed be an option.
Generally speaking, sir, your contributions have been credible and I have been one of the few that have oftentimes given you the few thumbs up that you are able to glean.
Your diatribe here has caused me to reevaluate the habit of clicking on your posts. In fact, I think I'll just ignore you from now on.
It was good for a while.
Well, BoA certainly needed something to pull their butts out the crack they managed to fall into.
No, sorry. The handle was a work of purposeful incongruity.
That's simply someone's interpretation. Remember, it was the Articles that established the "perpetual Union". The Constitution was a malevolent afterthought. Read Article VI and make sure you understand the usage of the words. Bouvier's will help.
Damn. I feel like I'm teaching class.
I placed an order with them about this time last week. I was informed that due to high volume demand for their products I shouldn't expect my order to ship in less than 2 weeks. ALL PREVIOUS ORDERS HAD SHIPPED WITHIN 48 HOURS.
Intentions are not on a par with reality. Look how long it took for the states themselves to assemble a government and then add atop that the effort to formalize The Articles of Confederation, (which are still in effect, btw.).
Simply put: The Absence of Government, which is what the condition was when the crown was kicked to the curb.
The apologetics given the crown in their message abolishing the form to which they had become accustomed did in no way establish a government. Furthermore, it also said that governance required the consent of the governed. Where does it illustrate, at least beyond the signers, or attempt to even lay the foundation for anything remotely similar to a government and demonstrate that it had the consent of more than a room full of signers? There simply is no substance to your assertion.
I think you are grasping at straws.
It is a given that with the Declaration obviating the rule of the crown and there being no systemic governance to move immediately into that vacuum that the clinical definition of that situation should be anarchy. I stand by my previous assessment.
Simply because the situation devolved into a new (and chaotic) statist regime shortly thereafter changes nothing about that which I wrote. In fact, your commentary only serves to show that the decline from the height of true individual freedom had only ensued. Why you cannot see that, as plain as it is, is beyond me.
Anarchy does not necessarily imply a total loss of order, but it would certainly amplify the situation in localities where order merely hangs by a thread. Order there is only a false paradigm in any event. Nor should it carry with it the stealthily placed mind’s eye picture of a figure clad in a dark cloak carrying a Molotov Cocktail.
I mentioned previously that we have too many in the populace that have no clue regarding the non-aggression principle; this same set coincides with another subset that feels it has a legitimate claim on the productivity of others. It will be the re-education process in that quadrant that will create the most turmoil and the greatest casualty count.
The Declaration of Independence, in abrogating the rule of King George III, established anarchy; there was no colonial governance save that which had operated under the aegis of the crown and upon the signing of the Declaration all that was swept away. As the "replacement mechanism" has morphed into what we have today—through all manner of illegitimate means including fraud, deceit and even murder—freedom, true freedom has been sacrificed on the altar of misguided political necessity, a/k/a the grabbing of political power to further the control and plunder of the people. That has been the true "product" of government's "evolution". I’m hard pressed to formulate an argument for its continuation.
The most fearful aspect of real freedom is that by and large we have a considerable population component that is neither pious nor morally grounded. Moreover, they innately gravitate to the notion that the end justifies the means and are willing to accept and even subscribe to acts of evil if there is a perceived chance of betterment... preemptive war comes to mind here.
An individual that understands the non-aggression principle and is willing to live by it needs no government. After all, government is just consolidated force, acting well beyond the individual authority it is supposed that they are imbued with by the people that have given their consent (yet another disparate concept forwarded in that same Declaration), that survives only by control and plunder of the populace through the threat of or the actual application of violence.
It is for all these reasons and still more that I cannot bring myself to endorse the continuance of such a paradigm given the empirical evidence against it.
I never would have thought that you belonged in the statist camp.
It was God's remedy to debt. Every 50 years all debt was to be forgiven and property was to be returned to it's original owner. Of course, contracts were to be written around these circumstances so that no one was damaged by the restoration and the elimination of the indebtedness.
The biblical regulations concerning the Jubilee year form part of the Holiness Code, which appears in the Torah as part of the collections of laws given on Mount Sinai or Mount Horeb. According to these regulations, the Jubilee was to be sounded once 49 years had been counted, raising an ambiguity over whether the Jubilee was within the 49th year, or followed it as an intercalation in the 7 year sabbatical cycles; scholars and classical rabbinical sources are divided on the question.
The biblical requirement is that the Jubilee year was to be treated like a Sabbatical year, with the land lying fallow, but also required the compulsory return of all property to its original owners or their heirs, except the houses of laymen within walled cities, in addition to the manumission of all Israelite indentured servants.
There's more still at Wikipedia.
Historically, 25% unemployment has been the breeding grounds for open and hostile revolt. America needs a catharsis in the worst way. The issue here is how or in what form would we come out the other side with. I'm not opposed to anarchy, but the population is full of those that have no clue when it comes to the non-aggression principle. That means a great many will die in the ensuing cleaning out process. Maybe it really would have been much better to restore the idea of a Jubilee.
While they have indicated that such an event could take place within the next 3 months, one can only wonder which market segments will bear the brunt of such. I'm guessing it'll be the financials as they have huge edifices built on nothing but debt.
Without some cohesive plan, other commodities, those that lend themselves to life support and the frivolity of some pleasure, say toilet paper for example, would most likely come to the fore in advance of specie.
An iron stomach or perhaps just some patience. They have in effect painted themselves into a corner and the end result isn't in doubt.