NO! This is utter fallacy. This is the “conventional wisdom” they have been propagating for decades. It is simply not true. In a free market with an unwavering respect for property rights, the disparity of the rich and the poor tends to shrink as the producers are constantly competing to best serve the needs of the mass of customers. In contrast, as we have moved further and further away from true capitalism in the past few decades, we have seen the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Plus, on the other hand, the disparity between the rich and the poor is really meaningless. If you live in a free society in which even the poorest people can feed, clothe, and shelter themselves, work in agreeable conditions for reasonable pay, can afford some leisure time, and can afford adequate health care–while the majority of humanity for the majority of history has, comparatively, lived in abject squalor–who cares if the free society also has people of great wealth who came upon their wealth by engaging in peaceful, voluntary exchange?

Secondly, the free market works to eliminate discrimination, not encourage or preserve it. If the majority of employers tended to discriminate against a certain class of people, then more shrewd employers would simply capitalize on this fact and hire only from this class of people, profit from the margin, and defeat his competitors. There simply is not room in a free market for arbitrary discrimination. The same holds true for producers–those that want to discriminate will lose valuable customers to those that serve all customers equally.

Also, who regulates the regulators? Government has proven time and again to be unworthy stewards of public trust.

“More so than that, an argument for SOME regulation (in the form of the Fed, or some other variation) is that the overall economy would suffer, as it did in the days before Fed, from greater instability and lower overall potential due to a higher level of failure (essentially trial and error) that would be the natural regulation in a totally “free market” (unregulated). Over long periods of time, this may be the ideal ideal but most of us don’t enough time in our lifetime to try and fail a few times or to work for someone who’s going to try and fail with my job on the line.”

Again, with all due respect, this is utter nonsense that does not hold up to theoretical scrutiny or the historical record. The artificial money creation and market interventions of the Fed create the malinvestment that causes the booms which lead to the busts. The “totally unregulated free market” always tends towards stability as the market participants are fully aware that they will have to bear the costs of failure–though failures themselves are indeed a normal part of a stable, functioning market. Also, the market signals are aligned with reality so that the forecasts of entrepreneurs and investors are more accurate, instead of being mislead by the fraudulent indicators created by the Fed’s interventions.

“You talk about it being unconstitutional. What passage in the constitution would indicate that this is unconstitutional? I don’t have the exact record of this legislation but the collective gov’t has the authority to pass laws fo the general welfare by passing it in the house/senate, signing into law by the executive, or being ruled unconstitutional by the court (the three branches, as laid out in the constitution). Even if it was unconstitutional in the first place, we’ve had almost 100 years to correct it.”

Article One, Section 8, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution: “[Congress shall have the power] To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;”

Article One, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

“Congress shall have the power to COIN money.” Federal Reserve Notes are NOTES. They are NOT money.

“No State shall coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” Nothing but GOLD and SILVER COIN.

A note is a certificate. If you have a “gift certificate,” you don’t have the /gift/, you have a certificate to /redeem/ the gift. If you give me an apple, and I give you an IOU for one ounce of silver, the transaction is not yet complete–you’re still stuck with nothing but an IOU. If you pay for something with a note, the transaction is not complete–you have not gotten any /money/ yet.

Legal tender laws that force people to accept Federal Reserve Notes for payment are unconstitutional and unlawful. They are “Law[s] impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” They presume to put limits on my unlimited right to contract by making it “illegal” for me and other voluntary parties to conduct our business using real money–gold and silver.

“I can appreciate that people like Jefferson and Madison opposed it. They didn’t put that in the constitution though.”

Clearly, they DID put it in the constitution. Not only that, but if you read the history, THE REASON they called the Philadelphia Convention was to improve the Articles of Confederation because the states were having problems with runaway inflation because they were all printing their own fiat, paper notes. While we can argue whether or not it was a good idea to discard the Articles of Confederation and write the Constitution, THE PRIMARY REASON for coming together to form a “MORE perfect union” was to make sure that only gold and silver could be used as money.

More so than that, an argument for SOME regulation (in the form of the Fed, or some other variation) is that the overall economy would suffer, as it did in the days before Fed, from greater instability and lower overall potential due to a higher level of failure (essentially trial and error) that would be the natural regulation in a totally “free market” (unregulated). Over long periods of time, this may be the ideal ideal but most of us don’t enough time in our lifetime to try and fail a few times or to work for someone who’s going to try and fail with my job on the line.

You talk about it being unconstitutional. What passage in the constitution would indicate that this is unconstitutional? I don’t have the exact record of this legislation but the collective gov’t has the authority to pass laws fo the general welfare by passing it in the house/senate, signing into law by the executive, or being ruled unconstitutional by the court (the three branches, as laid out in the constitution). Even if it was unconstitutional in the first place, we’ve had almost 100 years to correct it.

I can appreciate that people like Jefferson and Madison opposed it. They didn’t put that in the constitution though.