> > It seems that Jim defines "thug" as an individual who > > advocates or participates in the initiation of force > > against others. > > I think that's a very fair characterization of my position.
Ok, then I have a few questions for you. Here is a quote from your message a few days ago: "You are the vicious thug who insists on imposing paper money on these workers, not me. I'm not the one who is destroying the value of savings and pensions to the detriment of everyone in the hypothetical economy, you are. I think the workers would be better off if they would string you up from a lamppost for your economic lunacy." EOQ You are suggesting that I should be strung up from a lamppost. How is that for advocating use of force against others? Are you defining yourself as a "thug", or what is going on? Secondly. Can you quote me where I have said that paper money should be imposed on people? If not, then I would suggest you take your insulting language back and talk about the arguments on the table, instead of the person who brought them. > I think advocating the initiation of force, whether it > is in the form of taxation or fiat money or debt peonage > is a bad thing. I agree. Danny --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
