It's the private banks they should really be after.
No....
The government is owned by the private banks,
...snip...
You know better than to say something that silly.
You have misunderstood the situation.
The Fed is a "private organization" that is given powers above and beyond those that are available in the private sector. So the fed is a "quasi-private" organization. It is neither private nor public, it is in the gray area.
Since private banks do provide a useful service, it would be silly to get rid of them. Instead, we should make them unable to fuck us over with the government by removing the government. The natural result of a central locus of control is a battle for domain over that central locus. Decentralize the control, and nobody can gain the central locus and use it to benefit himself.
You're all right. I was painting a too simplistic picture myself.
My point, however, is that the (American) government is at the moment not functioning like it should be. It's not a government by the people for the people. It's a government of the banking cartel for the banking cartel.
Thís is what needs to be fixed. We need to get money out of politics, I think. Abolishing government althogether is too radical, since we do need government for a lot of reasons, just like we (might) need private banks.
(I'm northern European and I think my own government has been doing a pretty decent job. So that's probably why I feel this way.)
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/http://no-consent.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/crony-capitalism-obama-300x225.jpgHow about defining land as public property, as opposed to not defining land as no property at all? 'Cause the latter seems rather unfeasable; we might all want to live in the heart of London or Paris or whatever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commonsSorry, I think I'm missing your point?
How are we gonna decide who gets to live on the Champs-Élysées? What has the Tradegy of the Commons got to do with this?
