In the US, the people are the gold that backs the currency, and the currency is the signature.
By using an endorsement before the signature and on the face of the bill, you can qualify the instrument being negotiated.
For example, discharging bills (which are really credit vouchers in disguise) and receiving your pay in tax-free notes.
In the US, it is only a presumption that the people are debtors; they are really the creditors but too few are asserting their rights!

(Colorization mine.)


(Colorization mine.)

I assert that there is a remedy, that you can use the lawful currency that already "circulates" debt-free and tax-free, and in this way reduce the national debt.

What are you asserting?

An interesting back an forth. This is a deep and complex issues that is complicated by the horrible history of eugenics.
TPTB is correct in that no individual, government, or IQ test can top-down decide which individuals in which situations will be worthwhile.

This was the primary failure of Nazi Germany. They top-down defined what was superior "tall, blond, blue eyed and Aryan" and top-down decided that everyone else was inferior slated either for servitude or liquidation. The Nazi's subsequently liquidated millions of very high IQ Ashkenazi Jews, millions more high IQ "inferior Slavs" and their actions in the end lead to millions of German deaths.  It is interesting but not surprising that everyone advocating for "elimination of the undesirables" places their group in the role of the superior cast.

Today we have vast social welfare systems that discourage productive work and encourages government dependence. A single mom in the US is better of earning a gross income of $29,000 then to earn a gross income of $69,000 due to the government benefits provided to low income mothers.



Our system discourages work and encourages government dependence. There are undoubtedly some individuals living off of government who are entirely incapable of a productive contribution to society. There is likely a much larger portion that is capable of some contribution to society who are currently following the logical path of government dependence as this is easier, less risky, and involves less work.

The argument that socialism is eliminates natural selection on the population is flawed as it assumes that our current models of welfare will continue as they are today. This will not happen. Social Security and welfare in the US date back to 1935. Medicare and Medicaid are far more recent and date back to 1965. These are historical blips. These programs are unsustainable and thus will end or more likely be significantly changed long before they result in a significant effect on population genetics. As government finances deteriorate they will continue to pay these obligations but will do so with increasingly devalued currency reducing the overall subsidy over time.

In regards to dysgenic fertility in high IQ women I believe this will also prove to be a transient phenomena. Right now we are living through perhaps the most profound shift in natural selective pressure since the development of agriculture 8000+ years ago. In 1960 the birth control pill was approved by the FDA. Since that time women who wish to control their fertility do so and women who do not desire children do not have children. This is unprecedented in human history and represents a profound shift in selective pressure from males to females. We have decoupled sex from reproduction and in doing so have displaced male success at sexual relations as the primary driver of human evolution. Today the primary driver of human reproduction is the desire of women to have children. A substantial portion of the female population is not adapted to the new environment and are in the process of selecting themselves partially or completely out of the gene pool. After a few generations this will leave us with a population that prioritize children and I believe that the trend towards dysgenic fertility will dissipate.

This is incorrect. The selective pressures going forward will increasingly favor nerds over "grunts"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375720/What-women-really-want--money-Research-finds-women-look-paid-job-partner.html


http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/do-women-really-value-income-over-looks-in-a-mate

Well there are 2 things women want and need:  attractive man & resources.

Now socialism provides resources for women so they are not necessarly inclined to rich people, so they only look for hot men.

It's for note that socialism favors alpha-males, because alpha-males can conquer women without money (because they can just live on welfare) and only with their muscles and attractiveness.

Beta males have lesser luck with women and mostly only get MILFS , then they have to have bigger income to pay your MILF girlfriend and her kid.

But we know that this socialism wont last for long, or it should not last long.


So if the economy gets free without welfare, then "macho" boys will need to get to work, and earn money if they want to get pussy.

While beta males, are usually intelligent and they will earn tons of money and then get even more pussy then alpha males.


There is rivalry between males too, so it's not a uniform world in any case.

The post contends that "that is . . . a payment and discharge of the debt" (1aguar).

1. An ellipsis was used to indicate the omission of "not," and the citation includes a hyperlink to the source material.

2. See the blue text of this post.

(Though it makes the quick review of these posts tedious, the entirety of your post has been cited.)


1. A government can pay its loan(s) with (an)other loan(s) (essentially, postponing the settlement thereof ad infinitum).

2. Since government enforces law, the enforcement of law necessarily entails an appeal to government. Since your proposal seems to lack such an appeal, there is no (at least, standard) reason to anticipate the compliance of government with the enforcement of the special "lawful[ness]" (1aguar) of your "lawful money" (1aguar).

1. In which case, they would not receive the capital they otherwise would.

2. A law code does not enforce itself. (E.g., the steele whereupon the Code of Hammurabi was inscribed did not, itself, physically beat the violators of that law code.)