Fri, Dec 24, 2010
If it was some of the banks and not others, then I'd say you don't have the right to service from any particular business, person, or other organization, and that the free market should decide (until the whole money system gets redesigned, but that's a different subject).
But its not some of the banks and not others. Its not a free market. Its a centrally controlled system with the
of competition. All those banks are only a user-interface to the centralized system, like you can use different web-browsers but still get the same internet.
The problem is the monopoly decided to deny service to some and not others, 1 bank, not many. Monopolies should be illegal. All these problems could be solved by redesigning governments and society into a peer-to-peer organization (everyone has equal power, the definition of democracy) instead of hierarchies (leaders and forced followers, the definition of slavery).
Over the next few decades, hierarchy strategies vs peer-to-peer strategies will be the most important thing. Those with power now will want hierarchies to become stronger. The open-source software builders (including myself) and people who think the same way for non-software things (like those who write on Wikipedia or the Pirate Parties) will work toward peer-to-peer organizations of society.
Hierarchies lead to World War 3 and extinction, for the same reason there have always been wars (There have always been hierarchies). Wikileaks losing money to the central bank is an effect of hierarchies.
is a much worse effect and continues to get stronger. There is only 1 option left.
Or do you think we should let our centralized masters continue to whip us in the cotton fields as long as they distribute the whipping evenly between us and unevenly not on themselves (only take Wikileaks money if they do worse things, but still things not as bad as our masters do)?