Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[TheNewSaint]

What I'm still not wrapping my head around is WHY would I, or anyone, want to take on the possible debt of four other people, particularly if they are all deadbeats.

I think it's supposed to be some kind of communal hippie arrangement, with the modern blockchain model applied. The community looks out for their own, while the blockchain-like network of surety agreements provides information security, error checking, and openness. There's also a naive belief in the power of "surety", as if this word has some magical power to enforce obligations that ordinary contracts don't. It actually says all this:

A “substantive” binding surety is an independent written, witnessed agreement between living souls, for each to stand surety for the other; meaning you are agreeing to take responsibility for your bondsmen and them for you in an equally reciprocated bond.

The surety bond is a commitment of deep trust between the two parties, and if used local community is the security for the community itself in many ways

The constructed legal model, based exclusively upon constructed legal fictions, also attempts to impose a fictional surety bond, using deception and ignorance as the basis of consent.

Most of all, the system makes no concessions to imperfection. Everything works perfectly; there is never any inflation or deflation; accounts always balance except in cases of fraud; everyone always honors their surety; it's even immune to power outages:

All it takes to destroy it is an EMP attack, a power cut or a Law passed to make it illegal

i had a chat with the inventor and all he said is "they cannot stop a peer to peer system that has no centralised source, once its freed it is created purely by users, the users download the software which is drawn from the cloud, and use it"

Whoever designed this system has no understanding of human nature, much less economics. It requires human beings to act in illogical and irrational ways.

[JimUk1]

Those systems also demotivate people. Why would anyone want to go above and beyond when the reward and recognition is the same as the fellow who did next to nothing.

There's a reason the west is attractive to the world; capitalism works!

[notorial dissent]

I would agree, the ONLY thing i can see that the designer has even a rudimentary understanding of is the general gullibility and financial stupidity and ignorance of a certain class of suckerclient

[TheNewSaint]

Those systems also demotivate people. Why would anyone want to go above and beyond when the reward and recognition is the same as the fellow who did next to nothing.

There's a reason the west is attractive to the world; capitalism works!

You're right, this system shares a lot of misconceptions with 20th century socialist/Marxist theory: All labor is not equally valuable. It should go without saying that some skills are more valuable than others. Also, demand for labor is not constant. There may be more or less work to be done, and more or fewer people to do it, just due to demographic fluctuation. This can also vary by type of work, and location. Trying to maintain a consistent value for one unit of "labor" is pure folly.

There's another problem I've identified: there seem to be no limits on "surety." If I agree to "bond" anyone, I am agreeing to assume unlimited debt, from unlimited people. Even if I trust everyone 100%, people can fail to meet their obligations for reasons that aren't their fault (death, injury, loss of job, etc.) And, statements like "you can buy a house and start paying for it in 5 years" imply that a lot of credit is available in the system. That, and the pass-the-buck model for debt, mean that the system is likely to attract deadbeats.

I can't just refuse to bond for deadbeats, because the pyramid nature of the scheme quickly puts me in that position. I might trust persons A, B, C, and D, but the system implicitly requires me to trust everyone they trust, because those people's debts can trickle two levels to me. And so on and and so on. Before I know it, I'm on the hook for 1/64 of Tom Crawford's new house. Which he's living i, because there are no real repercussions to not paying your debts. People would quickly run up deficits and leave the system.

And what if I end up owing money to myself? So-and-so owes me 100 LC, that debt gets split among 4 people at 25 LC each, and I'm under one of those people to the tune of 6.25 LC. Do I pay myself? It makes some sense that I should have to forfeit this amount, since I indirectly agreed to cover that person's debts. But once again, value is leaking out of the system. I provided 6.25 LC worth of value that I didn't get paid for.

LabourCoin makes an interesting thought experiment in to why freetard utopias simply won't work. They are economically flawed, technically unfeasible, contrary to human nature, and ripe to exploitation.

[JimUk1]

As another forum member has said, human nature simply won't allow socialism work in the long run.

After a generation or so it simple becomes abused.

It also stagenates your talent pool, the budding entrepreneur simply absolved into the system and given the same as the lazy arse who gets-by doing minimal work.

I think Finland is trying or has tried the "minimum wage for all" experiment; but even the hard core left journalists at the Guardian are doubtful it will work-
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... l-security

[Hercule Parrot]

As another forum member has said, human nature simply won't allow socialism work in the long run.

After a generation or so it simple becomes abused.

It also stagenates your talent pool, the budding entrepreneur simply absolved into the system and given the same as the lazy arse who gets-by doing minimal work.

Drifting into politics here, but above isn't socialism. 'Same wage for all' is more a hard-core communist idea, not actually used in any nation (not even the Norks). Socialism would be a basic income for all, but with freedom for individuals to earn more (by learning a valuable skill, or just working more hours).

Anyhow, I sense the approaching tread of a moderator.... <ducks>

[Hercule Parrot]

What I'm still not wrapping my head around is WHY would I, or anyone, want to take on the possible debt of four other people, particularly if they are all deadbeats.

I think NewSaint hit the nail on the head with his reference to Prisoner's Dilemma. A system like this will be primarily attractive to the sort of people who don't feel too strongly about honouring their debts. In the mainstream banking system the consequences of default fall upon the borrower, but in the wonderful new Elsie model the guarantors/bondsmen have to cover it.

This is a big plus for the debt-welshing dirtbag segment of the retail banking market. They will join in order to recklessly borrow and spend, with no intention of repayment. Let the other mugs pick up the tab, etc. But then they realise that a significant proportion of LC customers are 'exploiters' like themselves - too many predators and not enough prey - it then becomes a race to see who can take out the most value before the system crashes.

[littleFred]

A new GOOFy has a novel approach to getting out of debt free: just borrow loadsamoney and don't make even the first payment.

Hi jezzi878360. Thank you for posting this message as I have not paid my first loan instalment (due date was 17 Feb) and I am now patiently and nervously waiting for them to contact me. My total debt is just under 6000 with only Nationwide....I am not entirely sure now (after reading someone else's experience using the copyrights letters) what letters should I use: 3 letters or copyright? A bit of enlightment will help, thanks

I kinda like this cheeky approach. Don't bother waiting for the bad debt to be sold and then pretend you've never heard of the debt. Simply borrow with no intention of repaying.

But, when they realise this isn't simply a first-payment glitch, Nationwide might be less forgiving. They may even (shock!) treat it as fraud.

[notorial dissent]

I was going to say, just good old fashioned fraud. Which it certainly is.

[Firthy2002]

Yes this one will go straight to the fraud department and then the Police.

[noblepa]

A new GOOFy has a novel approach to getting out of debt free: just borrow loadsamoney and don't make even the first payment.

Hi jezzi878360. Thank you for posting this message as I have not paid my first loan instalment (due date was 17 Feb) and I am now patiently and nervously waiting for them to contact me. My total debt is just under 6000 with only Nationwide....I am not entirely sure now (after reading someone else's experience using the copyrights letters) what letters should I use: 3 letters or copyright? A bit of enlightment will help, thanks

I kinda like this cheeky approach. Don't bother waiting for the bad debt to be sold and then pretend you've never heard of the debt. Simply borrow with no intention of repaying.

But, when they realise this isn't simply a first-payment glitch, Nationwide might be less forgiving. They may even (shock!) treat it as fraud.

Maybe their thinking (such as it is) goes something like this. Tom Crawford and others went to court denying that they owed anything at all, for various reasons. Among other things, the court pointed out that they had made the payments for many years, so they must have recognized that they owed the money. In this scheme, if they never make a payment, the creditor can't use that argument against them.

[Pottapaug1938]

Jezzi878360 wrote, in the thread quoted by noblepa:

"Want to understand about the 3 letters, is it 3 letters to the bank and 3 letters to the creditors
or 3 to bank and 1 to the creditors i am not quite sure how its done can someone please explain, are they all sent at the same time?"

Jezzi, you can send the 3 letters to President Trump, the Pope and Santa Claus; and they will be every bit as ineffective as the letters which you propose to send to your bank and creditors.

[aesmith]

A new GOOFy has a novel approach to getting out of debt free: just borrow loadsamoney and don't make even the first payment.
...
But, when they realise this isn't simply a first-payment glitch, Nationwide might be less forgiving. They may even (shock!) treat it as fraud.

I really hope so.

[TheCoz]

My respect for tiggy just wen't up a notch, on that same thread;

Tiggy wrote:
"You've just taken out a loan but haven't made the first repayment and are planning on sending the 3 letters - are you utterly mad ?

This has the potential to damage you in more ways then you can imagine - never mind that they'll immediately start recovery action through the Courts and if they don't see this as criminal I'll be amazed.

They'll also probably slap a possible fraud notice on your record (CIFAS) which could result in ALL banking facilities being withdrawn (regardless of who you bank with) and you'll probably never get insurance again at any reasonable rate anyway, you'd never get a mortgage. Potentially, this could financially blight you for many years to come.

You SERIOUSLY need to rethink this !"

[notorial dissent]

Amazing, and yes shocking, an actual sane response coming from the home of insanity. I'm sure it will offend someone.

[TheNewSaint]

I think Tiggy's real concern is that such a blatant case somehow impugns the three-letter approach in general. Still, the advice is correct. Two wrongs really do make a right sometimes.

[Hercule Parrot]

I think Tiggy's real concern is that such a blatant case somehow impugns the three-letter approach in general.

I've never seen Tiggy encourage the GOOFY nonsense (three letters / tacit estoppel / copyrighted name / fee schedule etc)

[Burnaby49]

I think Tiggy's real concern is that such a blatant case somehow impugns the three-letter approach in general.

I've never seen Tiggy encourage the GOOFY nonsense (three letters / tacit estoppel / copyrighted name / fee schedule etc)

I've just posted a recent Canadian court decision that specifically targets GOODF and eviscerates it.

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=11355

And of course it includes name copyrighting;

[27] The July 15, 2016 ‘conditional acceptance’ also attaches a “Common Law Copyright Notice” from the Get Out Of Debt Free website. This is the same document reproduced in Rogozinsky at Appendix “E”. In brief, the “Common Law Copyright Notice” purports to require anyone who uses Mr. McDougald’s name must pay him $1 million per use. “Common Law Copyright” is also asserted over Mr. McDougald’s bodily characteristics, such as fingerprints, retinal image data, DNA, tissue samples, and even to his “semen, urine, faeces, excrement, other bodily fluids and matter of any kind”. Master Schlosser in Rogozinsky at paras 80-87 rejected this “bizarre, inexplicable claim” as having no legal effect. In Meads v Meads Rooke ACJ at paras 501-504 rejects foisted unilateral copyright claims as having “an overwhelmingly juvenile character” and no effect in law. I agree with these conclusions.

At $1,000,000 a pop it can add up;

August 31, 2016 - a ‘third notice’ is sent by Mr. McDougald to the Anderson Sinclair law firm. This document is largely the same as the one reproduced in Rogozinsky at Appendix “C”, except that Mr. McDougald’s version omits the introductory paragraph, and attaches a “previously agreed upon invoice” that bills the law firm $276.072 million, most of which relates to 276 $1 million “unauthorized Trademark Infringements from June 2013 to July 2016 nunc pro tunc.”

[exiledscouser]

Where Mr McDougald went wrong was he should have sprung for the magic super-super deluxe version of the letters with extra penetrating estoppel power, useful additional adornments and ancient geometric symbols that courts truly fear for those stubborn debts others letters just can't shift.

As he is finding out, only Dire Straits get money for nothing.

Bloody Canadians. Commin' overe ere, rubbishing all our freemen, applying common sense in well constructed easy to read and understand judgements. A pox on their houses!

[Burnaby49]

Where Mr McDougald went wrong was he should have sprung for the magic super-super deluxe version of the letters with extra penetrating estoppel power, useful additional adornments and ancient geometric symbols that courts truly fear for those stubborn debts others letters just can't shift.

As he is finding out, only Dire Straits get money for nothing.

Bloody Canadians. Commin' overe ere, rubbishing all our freemen, applying common sense in well constructed easy to read and understand judgements. A pox on their houses!

Hey, screw you too, somebody has to do it if you Brits won't get off your asses and make an effort.

Actually I am surprised how UK sovereign types seem to be able to do whatever the hell they want with no apparent concern on the part of the law or the courts. Parlee, the WeRe Bank decision, was a trivial debt issue in Alberta. Yet it got the full frontal from Queen's Bench.

Where Mr McDougald went wrong was he should have sprung for the magic super-super deluxe version of the letters with extra penetrating estoppel power, useful additional adornments and ancient geometric symbols that courts truly fear for those stubborn debts others letters just can't shift.

Really? That might have defeated the court system in the UK where they seem to be actively avoiding confronting these issues but we're talking about the big league here, Alberta's Queen's Bench, the court that blasted out a 180 page adverse decision when Dennis Meads decided to use sovereign bullshit to try and gain a trivial advantage in his divorce proceedings. That one was done by the dreaded Judge Rooke himself. Now Queen's Bench just passes them down to Masters for the demo job.