LYCURGUS OF SPARTA: BUYING FREEDOM WITH IRON

Economics Economics Questions
21

First, I’ve already made my point in the above text, that of all the other unusual features of Sparta noted by historians, people hauling a cartload of worthless iron coins to market to buy a pair of shoes could not have gone unnoticed. Therefore, purchasing power must have stayed fairly stable.

And yes, I have heard of this thing called “peace”. I have also seen al the ridiculous books and articles lately about Lincoln’s “unjust war”. These are utter nonsense. The Civil War was, at least partly, a result of foreign manipulation in an effort to force the U.S. into adopting a central bank. The war itself was coming whether Lincoln wanted one or not. We can also thank Czarist Russia for threatening to intervene should European powers actually take direct action in aiding the South. Russia, incidently, was the very last major power to embrace a central bank in… wait for it… 1917!

Lincoln simply had to make the best of a bad situation, printing debt-free money, thus ensuring a fast recovery from the damage fiat currency caused. And in the tradition of Cincinnatus and all the great Roman Dictators, once the job was done, he was able to let go of tyrannical power and return his people-- and in this rare case, all his people-- to liberty. No president in history was ever given (or has ever taken) as much authority and has been able to give it up. Presidents the likes FDR never willingly let go of the powers they assumed, and America still deals with the consequences.

22

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

  • Carl Sagan

Sorry, am I supposed to just take your word on this? You further beg the question here as to why the so-called “Civil War” was coming whether Lincoln (let alone anyone else) wanted it.

However, that wasn’t even my point. Peace is always an option. Nice attempt to remove it from the realm of discourse, though.

23

Sorry I was absent for a bit on this thread the other night, but I was off busily doing that thing that everyone claims is never the answer.

Living under tyranny is not peace; slavery is not peace. Peace is far more than simply the absence of war. Before true peace can be achieved, the tyrants, big and small, must be stopped by whatever means necessary. Small government is absolutely vital not just for the general liberty of the citizenry, but so the bad elements in it never get a chance to cause trouble in the first place. Still, it s a sad irony that history proves peace is appreciated by mankind only after it has been fought over to the death.

I also do not think I am paranoid in believing that foreign powers and central bankers played a key role in causing the Civil War. Benjamin Franklin and James Madison spoke often and with great authority about the threat of “international bankers” and “money changers”. Today, the media would write them off as conspiracy nuts, but these men probably knew more about finance and the nature of money than anyone alive today. Madison, by the way, blamed the War of 1812 entirely on the issue of America adopting another central bank. That is why I always listen to those labeled as fringe lunatics, whether or not I agree with them at the time. The Founding Fathers were just such people.

24

What are you talking about? Violence? Maybe you can explain yourself more thoroughly here.

So you’re defining “peace” differently from how I’m defining it (which is “absence of war”). That’s nice. In no way does your different definition invalidate my point, though.

I never said you were paranoid. I said you were making a claim for which I’d have to see evidence and/or reasoning before I can accept it. So far you haven’t provided any of either in its favor. Can you do so or not?

25

I’m a little confused, are you saying people like Madison and Lincoln didn’t want a central bank? Also why do you believe that the Founders knew more about money and finance than anyone alive today?

“Before true peace can be achieved, the tyrants, big and small, must be stopped by whatever means necessary.”

I’m not sure this is really the case. If a criminal steals some lady’s purse and starts running through a crowd, would it be acceptable for the police to machine gun the entire crowd to stop the criminal and then justify it on the grounds that they had to use whatever means necessary?

In the case of slavery in the civil war (even assuming the war was about slavery which I’m convinced it wasn’t), I don’t see how the means the North took to go about winning the war were justified (I’m not defending the South; they did a lot of terrible things as well). To say that slavery needs to be abolished by any means necessary suggests to me that any action taken to end slavery is justified. Invasion and subjugation may end slavery, but is it worth the cost, especially as compared to alternatives? For instance, why not buy the slaves and set them free?

26

A quick response to some of the above, before I go back out to kill some more pirates…

Obviously, one would not kill innocent citizens to stop one lone criminal. In my ideal scenario, the crowd would not wait for police at all, but take action themselves and beat the criminal without mercy before police ever showed up.

I would most definitely say that Madison, along with most of the Founding Fathers wanted no such entity as a central bank. In fact, I would say that the only people who would seek to establish a central bank are those who would profit directly from it. Every time one was established in the U.S., it was always by the most underhanded means. I would also say Lincoln certainly did not want one, since he actually subverted the Constitution specifically to avoid government debt.

I also believe the Civil War was in no way about slavery, though that quickly became a rallying cry. The abolition of slavery was just a happy side effect. A non-violent solution such as buying slaves to set them free, would be subsidizing the institution of slavery. Abolitionists would run out of money very quickly, and there would be more slavery than ever before; a kind of “slave bubble”, if you will. In short, not a viable solution.

In answer to the earlier questions concerning the definition of peace, I would hardly think that the people of Tibet can say they live in peace, simply because they don’t fight back. I would also not say that those in the Ukraine under the yoke of the Stalin, then the Nazis, then Stalin again, could say they lived in anything like peace. In fact, those who did not resist got it worse than anyone. Under tyranny, peace is something you rest in.

As to proof that foreign powers and international bankers played a key role in the Civil war, I must confess that my sources are not readily available here in the middle of nowhere with the short time I have.

On the much earlier subject of famines, I never said that they did not exist in ancient times. I merely stated that they were not brought about by adverse economic conditions. All the ones I know of were the result of natural disasters or prolonged war, and in the case of war, it was generally only the losers who suffered.

I would also kind of like to put all the moral judgements aside, as I have stated from the beginning, and get some feedback on the original question of how Sparta could support its war machine for 800 years, having nothing for most of that time but worthless, fiat coin. From the start, I was hoping for answers to an economic question about the state of war and inflation, not a great debate.

27

The economies of ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, and Carthage thrived, often leading to trade wars and clashes of superpowers, but never to famine.

The economies of ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, and Carthage thrived, often leading to trade wars and clashes of superpowers, but never to famine.


The economies of ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, and Carthage thrived, often leading to trade wars and clashes of superpowers, but never to famine.

You can read in “The Conquest of Poverty” by Henry Hazlitt, that mass starvation was an universal characteristic of mankind in pre-capitalistic times, and that indeed famine was common in the ancient world.

In ancient Egypt, in particular, the government intervention in grain production caused systematic shortages and famines. This is nothing new.

28

“Obviously, one would not kill innocent citizens to stop one lone criminal. In my ideal scenario, the crowd would not wait for police at all, but take action themselves and beat the criminal without mercy before police ever showed up.”

I’m not sure this is the right thing to do either. What if it’s just a poor guy trying to steal a few dollars for his next meal? Stealing isn’t justified, but would the proper response be to beat him without mercy? As a matter of institutional justice I would say restitution is the only objectively “right” thing to do. Whether or not the criminal deserves punishment on top of having to compensate his victim seems like a more subjective, perhaps case by case, question. I’m not an expert in this field, that’s just how I feel about the issue.

“I would most definitely say that Madison, along with most of the Founding Fathers wanted no such entity as a central bank.”

I would tend to agree with you since it was proposed at the Constitutional Convention and shot down. As far as Madison goes however, the Second Bank of the United States was chartered under his administration and if I remember correctly, he believed it was constitutional (IIRC he didn’t believe this before the First Bank was chartered but over the years he changed his mind).

“I would also say Lincoln certainly did not want one, since he actually subverted the Constitution specifically to avoid government debt.”

“My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance,” [Lincoln] declared: “I am in favor of a national bank . . . the internal improvements system, and a high protective tariff.” http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo12.html

That’s an excerpt from an article written by Thomas DiLorenzo (I’ve also seen it in his books). Lincoln as a Whig and then a Republican almost certainly favored some sort of centralized banking system, though not necessarily in the form most people are used to. Whether by printing notes directly from the Treasury or establishing some sort of national bank, the effect would be to give the government the ability to finance itself and its politically connected friends with ease.

"A non-violent solution such as buying slaves to set them free, would be subsidizing the institution of slavery. Abolitionists would run out of money very quickly, and there would be more slavery than ever before; a kind of “slave bubble”, if you will. In short, not a viable solution."

I wasn’t using this as an example of what necessarily should have been done, nor did I mean to imply that it is abolitionists who should have undertaken it. I was trying to say that if the government “had” to act, compensated emancipation would have been far less destructive. But I think we both agree the war wasn’t about slavery so I don’t mean to get hung up on that point.

“In answer to the earlier questions concerning the definition of peace, I would hardly think that the people of Tibet can say they live in peace, simply because they don’t fight back. I would also not say that those in the Ukraine under the yoke of the Stalin, then the Nazis, then Stalin again, could say they lived in anything like peace. In fact, those who did not resist got it worse than anyone. Under tyranny, peace is something you rest in.”

I certainly believe you have the right to use aggression against someone who has initiated it against you. I think the point I was making was that it has to be proportional. If someone steals your wallet, you don’t fire bomb 10 city blocks to stop him. If someone tries to kill you, you most definitely have the right to fight back with lethal force if necessary.