| L |
iberty |
Our name comes from the famous last words of Patrick Henrey's speech to the Virginia Convention, March 23rd, 1775, leading up to the American Reolutionary War, aka the War of Independance.
Give me Liberty, or give me death.
Fortunately we are not faced with such dire circumstances and so limit our proclamation to only the first clause.
Such usage is simply for the purpose of clarity, corectness and completeness of that sentence. Such usage is in no way either an endorsement nor a rejection of said person or party.
For example:
The above statement is not an endorcement of the Libertarian Party and this statement is not a rejection of the Libertarian Party.
Another perspective is that by our stating the name of a party, we are not thereby endorcing said party, and yet by stating that said party faces a problem, we are not thereby rejecting said party.
For, the stated problem itself is faced by many political parties, and our solution might be utilized by any. But the said statement is simply our assessment that it is a major problem for the said party and (possibly) a lessor problem to others.
The purpose of said forum is for the civil, free, discussion and exchange of ideas concering the topics analysed by
Therefore we welcome the thoughts of any person, on any side of any issue, when presented respectfully with good intent.
However, due to the difficulty in issuing unambiguous, clearly formulated statements in a forum venue,
In this way
Further,
Such expansions and confusions provide the context and basis for further analyses. Whereas the flaws of course simply need to be erradicated.
Such involvement surves multiple purposes. From the user perspective it obviously allows the posing of questions, and expressions of confusion or uncertainty about the interpretation or meaning of our analyses. And of course the reporting of errors or flaws. But it also allows a venting of frustrations in a highly charged topic.
From our perspective it provides the opportunity to clarify or improve the analyses and add topics or areas of interest.
However, because political, like religious, topics are extremely important to individuals, expressions and statements can be heated and extreme. We therefore encourage a modicum of restraint and certainly civility, because we are not interested in engaging in futile arguments, but rather, analyses of issues.
By this, we do not presume to know all, but certainly attempt with great effort to expound clearly. Therefore your statements of fact can be useful to all, whereas emotional proclamations devoid of factual presentation, can serve as no basis for either of us to change our opinion, and are therefore pointless.
In any event, like the forum above, due to the difficulty in issuing unambiguous, clearly formulated statements which might require paragraphs or pages of contextual setup
In all things, and therefore all topics of discussion, there are dimensions. They might be referred to by the terms: subtopics, opinions, alternate views, alternate interpretations, related issues, divergences, ... The list is endless.
Now, conventional presentations are presented from the perspective of what
a binary view of the world.
For example the analysis and then a section on user contributions. Notice the binary perspective. It's either one or the other.
But from a more enlightened view of existence, one can see that it is not either one or the other but in fact user contributions are part of the analysis, or more precisely put, both analysis and user contributions are part of something larger.
Therefore using the primitive techniques at our disposal we shall attempt to incorporate your non-confidential emails into our analyses, thus also giving you credit where credit is due for either your enlightenment or your oversights, for the benefit of all members.
Naturally, we respect your privacy and therefore must advise that you should never include any personal information or any other information you would not want to share with the world, in any email addressed to
But we also respect your intellectual prowess and so whereas we reserve the right to edit said emails for presenting those portions which are germane, for the most part whenever possible we do no editing, for in these circumstances the meaning of clauses, phrases and sentences is best understood in the full context of what is said, not extraction and then trying to explain the context from which it was extracted, which actually adds its own interpretations and confusions.
Your user contributions will thus become part of our analysis for all posterity, for better or for worse. Word them therefore in a manner which you wish to be represented and known, for you so shall be.
Our First Such Invitation To Contribute
Currency & Gold Coin/Silver Coin Scenario
In the 1700's and 1800's it was common to have both gold and silver coin. There was no arbitrage market (to speak of). But in today's time there is arbitrage even in a single metal, comparing one market's price to another, reaping profit of only fractions, yet to the astute trader, substantial profit by volume. So to those who desire to create interchangeable coinage in both fine gold and fine silver, a new problem has arisen.
We are interested in proposed solutions to the dilemma posed as follows:
* A unit of money called the dollar is defined as some amount of gold measured by weight.
* This dollar may be coined in fine gold, and freely interchanged with notes of the same name (currency), by the banking system, without cost or fee.
* Because hundredths of a dollar (and other fractions, e.g., half, quarter, fifth, dime, nickle, penny) would be minuscule in physical size and thus easy to misplace, it is desired to have smaller portions of a dollar, but possibly even the dollar itself, also coined in fine silver, as was done in the US in the 1800's and 1900's for dollar, half, quarter and dime (and possibly others) (though less than fine was used).
* Ostensibly, the banking system would freely exchange a dollar currency for a dollar in gold or silver coinage.
Problem: How to prevent the continual destruction of the coinage, in the case of those who quite reasonably trade one face value for the other, worth more by content, and then subsequently send to the smelter, or not destruction of the coinage but bankruptcy of the system by simply selling silver coin to a coin dealer, for dollars, in either currency or gold, which are then taken to the bank and exchanged for silver coin, to be repeated at a profit to the exchanger at a loss to the system.
The above problem could be framed for gold instead of silver with the opposite price disparity.
The solution we seek is not one of laws and regulations producing crimes, investigations and enforcement, but one of a priori logic which self balances, or failing that, a clear, solid, definitive, logical proof of the infeasibility of the proposed currency-coinage scenario.
Your submission becomes the property of
Therefore we invite ...
... all persons of good intent to subscribe, and study with us, the concept of Liberty.