What are your thoughts on Hegel? [FASCIST EDITION] - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14887661
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Nah, I really am not taking it that seriously. Just pointing out that the majority of Christians preferring Pascal is kinda irrelevant. Thats all.


I don't think that the majority of the world's Christians know anything about anything, much less the wise Blaise Pascal. We have a moment in our common world history in which actual understanding is very limited these days, I'm afraid.
#14888284
annatar1914 wrote:We have a moment in our common world history in which actual understanding is very limited these days, I'm afraid.


Agreed.
#14890034
Save who you can I suppose. I am having as many children as possible and training them in the classic method....I am content of my strategy. Children can be taught; whereas, adults these days are rarely open knowledge, especially in this divided era, nobody trusts their teachers for political reasons.
#14892638
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Save who you can I suppose. I am having as many children as possible and training them in the classic method....I am content of my strategy. Children can be taught; whereas, adults these days are rarely open knowledge, especially in this divided era, nobody trusts their teachers for political reasons.

I'm a little surprised that you seem to dismiss public engagement, either political or intellectual, without a thought, as if it were obviously irrelevant or futile. Care to explain why? One can obviously reach many more people than one's own children by such means, though maybe not affect them as deeply. Surely the example of history encourages us to be optimistic that political and intellectual engagement can make a difference.
#14892641
Don't take my pessimism too seriously, I am only observing how entrenched the polarized parties are.

I intend to engage in public debate and writing books as my main occupation besides my farm, so don't think i'm being an isolationist.
#14892652
Oxymandias wrote:Here is some particularly appealing ideas for conservatives/fascists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sittlichkeit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Hegelians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic ... _dialectic

I highly recommend that you don't just read these links but also read his books as well.

Philosophy has never really come to terms with the fact of evolution, and that is well demonstrated by the influence obsolete thinkers like Hegel and Kant still wield in the discipline. Darwin rendered virtually all previous (especially moral) philosophy obsolete more than 150 years ago, but philosophers have yet to let go of it. To the extent that I am familiar with these works, they exemplify that problem. Of course, Hegel, Kant, Marx, etc. were pre-Darwinian, and did not know any better. The muddle-headedness of 20th century philosophy mostly just records its resistance to accepting the fact of evolution.
#14892656
The validity of any theory is evaluated by its rationality via the standards of logic, which is the realm of philosophy. Darwinism itself as a system of explanation is judged by that criteria. I personally find it wanting in many regards, and itself was critiqued by the likes of Nietzsche and Spengler for not going far enough to describe the nature of domination v. survival etc.
#14894444
Victoribus Spolia wrote:The validity of any theory is evaluated by its rationality via the standards of logic, which is the realm of philosophy.

No. In empirical science, a theory's validity is judged by its logical consistency, its consistency with established knowledge, its consistency with empirical observations, and especially its ability to predict such observations. By those criteria, the Theory of Evolution is as much an empirically proved fact as the Germ Theory of contagious disease and the Atomic Theory of matter.
Darwinism itself as a system of explanation is judged by that criteria.

Darwinism is not a good term to denote the Theory of Evolution, as it is too easily conflated with social Darwinism. Evolutionary theory has developed beyond Darwin's interpretation, in particular to include molecular biology and genetic mechanisms of which Darwin was entirely ignorant.
I personally find it wanting in many regards,

Perhaps you have not a strong background in empirical science.
and itself was critiqued by the likes of Nietzsche and Spengler for not going far enough to describe the nature of domination v. survival etc.

Nietzsche and Spengler had no experience with empirical science, little or no training in it beyond high school level, and were consequently utterly unqualified to critique an empirical theory. They are merely more examples of philosophers who never came to terms with the fact of evolution, and its implications for the humanities and philosophy. Evolution does not care about domination. It cares only about survival and reproduction. The slave who has children succeeds where his owner who dies in battle leaving no posterity fails.
#14894802
Truth To Power wrote:No. In empirical science, a theory's validity is judged by its logical consistency


Coherence is still judged by the laws of logic, and any theory that is incoherent is also irrational, so I don't know how this is an objection to my point.

Truth To Power wrote:its consistency with established knowledge


What do you mean by "established knowledge?" what sort of knowledge is established and what is the establishing process?

Truth To Power wrote: empirical observations


I assume you don't mean direct perception here, if this is the case, please define what you mean.

Truth To Power wrote:is as much an empirically proved fact as the Germ Theory of contagious disease and the Atomic Theory of matter.


I don't think either of those are necessarily true either.

Truth To Power wrote:Darwinism is not a good term to denote the Theory of Evolution, as it is too easily conflated with social Darwinism.


Maybe if you are a moron. Otherwise, Darwinism is perfectly acceptable and preferable to "theory of evolution," as there have been multiple theories of evolution in history. Darwinism differs from these (especially Lamarck's theory) in notable ways and that distinction should be made. Whether "social Darwinism" as an implication of Darwinism is valid or invalid is a separate matter which depends on whether the fundamental aspects of Darwinism are themselves valid.


Truth To Power wrote:Perhaps you have not a strong background in empirical science.


And perhaps you thinking this is somehow relevant to the validity of my claims is a fallacy.

Truth To Power wrote:Nietzsche and Spengler had no experience with empirical science, little or no training in it beyond high school level, and were consequently utterly unqualified to critique an empirical theory.


Fallacy. Appeal to authority. Whether or not they were empirical scientists or not is relevant to the validity or invalidity of their claims.

Truth To Power wrote:They are merely more examples of philosophers who never came to terms with the fact of evolution, and its implications for the humanities and philosophy.


Fallacy: Begging The Question. Assumes the validity of the position in question.

Truth To Power wrote:It cares only about survival and reproduction. The slave who has children succeeds where his owner who dies in battle leaving no posterity fails.


If that simplistic definition were all that was to it, then even young-earth creationists should be regarded as subscribing to the Darwinian theory of evolution as they do not deny that premise as you stated it. :lol:
#14894867
Victoribus Spolia wrote:What do you mean by "established knowledge?" what sort of knowledge is established and what is the establishing process?

Established knowledge has been shown to be effective in use.
I assume you don't mean direct perception here, if this is the case, please define what you mean.

Observations that can be replicated by others. That is the crucial difference between empirical science and the pre-scientific epistemology of theologians and philosophers.
I don't think either of those are necessarily true either.

But like the Theory of Evolution, they in fact are true as a matter of objective physical fact.
Maybe if you are a moron.

Don't speak too fast...
Otherwise, Darwinism is perfectly acceptable and preferable to "theory of evolution," as there have been multiple theories of evolution in history.

That's a reason Darwinism ISN'T a good synonym for evolution. Hello?
Darwinism differs from these (especially Lamarck's theory) in notable ways and that distinction should be made.

Obviously Darwinism isn't Lamarckism. The point is, modern evolutionary theory is not Darwinism, because it includes e.g., molecular and genetic mechanisms of which Darwin was ignorant. It's not just selection pressure applied to inherited phenotypic variation (Darwinism).
Whether "social Darwinism" as an implication of Darwinism is valid or invalid is a separate matter which depends on whether the fundamental aspects of Darwinism are themselves valid.

No, it depends on how we regard the relationship between facts and values.
And perhaps you thinking this is somehow relevant to the validity of my claims is a fallacy.

<yawn> No, it is not. The claim in question was that you personally found the theory wanting. Your lack of expertise for making such a judgement is certainly relevant to its validity.
Fallacy. Appeal to authority.

Wrong again. Whose authority did I appeal to? I simply invite readers to consult the evidence of their own senses.
Whether or not they were empirical scientists or not is relevant to the validity or invalidity of their claims.

I wasn't talking about their claims, which are known to be false. I was talking about why otherwise intelligent men might make such claims.
Fallacy: Begging The Question. Assumes the validity of the position in question.

Wrong again. I was not arguing that the Theory of Evolution is valid (that has already been amply demonstrated), but explaining why their "critiques" were irrelevant -- much like Hegel's argument that there could only be seven planets, which was disproved empirically within weeks of his making it.
If that simplistic definition were all that was to it, then even young-earth creationists should be regarded as subscribing to the Darwinian theory of evolution as they do not deny that premise as you stated it. :lol:

It was not a definition, just an example.
#14894872
How has Darwinism made philosophical thought redundant exactly?

Evolution is one of many aspects in the universe. It has no detrimental effect on human society, economy, space or meaning. Even animal behaviour is random to environment conditions and individual thought. Spengler thoughts confronts this issue. The fact, as Pote will testify, a fish evolved to become a human doesn't influence the fact civilizations tend to have a thousand year life cycle. This is a social fact and a conclusion would be reached by looking for social (not evolution) similarities. Nietzsche based his philosophy on meaning from social constructions not biological formats, so naturally was anti-religion. Hegel was a religious futurist looking for patterns in natural progression to reach an end goal. So he was beyond evolution.

So to say Darwin has made any of these philosophers work redundant is a complete fallacy that is up there with banks not needing money to lend.
#14894919
You did not address this:

Coherence is still judged by the laws of logic, and any theory that is incoherent is also irrational, so I don't know how this is an objection to my point.


Truth To Power wrote:Established knowledge has been shown to be effective in use.


That doesn't answer my question. I asked for a definition

To repeat:

What do you mean by "established knowledge?" what sort of knowledge is established and what is the establishing process?


Truth To Power wrote:Observations that can be replicated by others.


How do you mean "replicated by others" ?

Truth To Power wrote:They in fact are true as a matter of objective physical fact.


Please demonstrate why they are "true" as in being both a logically necessary explanation and exclusive of all other possibilities.

Truth To Power wrote:That's a reason Darwinism ISN'T a good synonym for evolution. Hello?


What?

Truth To Power wrote:Obviously Darwinism isn't Lamarckism. The point is, modern evolutionary theory is not Darwinism, because it includes e.g., molecular and genetic mechanisms of which Darwin was ignorant. It's not just selection pressure applied to inherited phenotypic variation (Darwinism).


As long as random mutation + natural selection exists as the principle explanation for the origin of a species, the theory is sufficiently darwinist as opposed to its contraries. The naming is adequate.

Truth To Power wrote:No, it depends on how we regard the relationship between facts and values.


No, because one does not have to affirm a system of morality to affirm the central tenants of social Darwinism, especially if such is argued as a description of socieities in a historical context. The fact-value distinction is only violated if an is-ought inference is made (fallacy).

Truth To Power wrote:<yawn> No, it is not. The claim in question was that you personally found the theory wanting. Your lack of expertise for making such a judgement is certainly relevant to its validity.


The "yawn" thing does not make much sense, is that some sort of attempt at internet humor? That's cute. Otherwise, the fallacy stands for the following reason: if the validity of my claim that the theory is wanting is to be valid, it can only be evaluated on the basis of whether my conclusions follow from my premises without fallacy or error (incoherence). To argue that my claims are invalid on the basis of my expertise or lack thereof is an appeal to authority (otherwise, why ask about my qualifications regarding empirical science?), for expertise or lack thereof is irrelvant to a claim's validity or invalidity.

Truth To Power wrote:Wrong again. Whose authority did I appeal to? I simply invite readers to consult the evidence of their own senses.


No, I was not wrong. You disqualified Spengler and Nietzche because a lack of experience which is, in fact, an appeal to authority. Indeed, it does not matter whether or not they made it through the first grade. The validity of their claims must be measured on their merits based on their own definitions. You are guilty of the fallacy, quite clearly. Here, let the record be clear, you said the following:

Truth To Power wrote:Nietzsche and Spengler had no experience with empirical science, little or no training in it beyond high school level, and were consequently utterly unqualified to critique an empirical theory.


logically speaking, there is no such thing as a "qualification" to make a critique, either the critique made is valid, invalid, or unintelligible. To say otherwise (as you clearly did) is a fallacy.

Truth To Power wrote:I wasn't talking about their claims, which are known to be false.


How are they known to be false? Can you demonstrate said falsity?

Truth To Power wrote: I was not arguing that the Theory of Evolution is valid (that has already been amply demonstrated),


You claim to have not committed the fallacy in question, and then you go ahead and commit it again. the phrase
that had already been amply demonstrated
is the point of contention in this conversation, thus to assert its validity or assume its validity prior to making the demonstration of such is a fallacy, it is begging the question.

Truth To Power wrote:much like Hegel's argument that there could only be seven planets, which was disproved empirically within weeks of his making it.


The existence of any other planets at all is not necessarily true either. Please demonstrate otherwise.

Truth To Power wrote:It was not a definition, just an example.


Oh good, so it was pointless and didn't demonstrate anything that anyone didn't already agree with.

Glad we're clear on that.
#14895694
B0ycey wrote:How has Darwinism made philosophical thought redundant exactly?

All the pre-Darwinian speculation in moral and political philosophy is irrelevant because our identity is simply that of evolved creatures that exist on a genetic continuum. We aren't a deliberate creation separated from all other creatures by possession of souls, intelligence, or anything else but 23 chromosome pairs. All we can really expect to have in common is our ability to reproduce sexually with other members of our species. Accordingly, moral reason, political relations, etc. are simply characteristics we have evolved because they advantaged reproduction of the associated genes. They have no meaning or basis but to reproduce those genes.
Evolution is one of many aspects in the universe. It has no detrimental effect on human society, economy, space or meaning.

That depends on what you mean by, "meaning." It is objectively the case that human existence has no meaning but to survive and reproduce. The age-old question, "Why are we here?" has a factual, objectively correct answer: we are here because billions of generations of our ancestors did what they had to do to cast their genes into the future, to survive in the only way they could because given entropy, individual immortality was not an option. Each one of us is just the latest stage in an inconceivably long and arduous struggle to survive, reproduce, and leave surviving descendants, a struggle that 99.999+% of all the living organisms that have ever existed have failed at. There is a certain bleakness and emptiness in this conception of our existence, but also an unmistakable grandeur: to repay our heritage by our posterity in an infinite chain of obligation.
Even animal behaviour is random to environment conditions and individual thought.

Individual thought is delimited by genetic potentiality.
Spengler thoughts confronts this issue. The fact, as Pote will testify, a fish evolved to become a human doesn't influence the fact civilizations tend to have a thousand year life cycle.

If that is true (doubtful), it's something that can be understood as arising from our nature as evolved beings. But maybe it's just that the sun has a ~1000y cycle, and civilizations that thrived in climatic good times fall when the weather turns bad.
This is a social fact and a conclusion would be reached by looking for social (not evolution) similarities.

Nope. See above. Social similarities are just one possible factor.
Nietzsche based his philosophy on meaning from social constructions not biological formats, so naturally was anti-religion.

But evolution shows that social constructions ARE biological. Nietzsche just didn't want to deal with that. It's too cold and unforgiving.
Hegel was a religious futurist looking for patterns in natural progression to reach an end goal. So he was beyond evolution.

He just did not understand the facts that there is no "progression," and the only ultimately meaningful goal is survival.
So to say Darwin has made any of these philosophers work redundant is a complete fallacy that is up there with banks not needing money to lend.

See above. And banks do not need money to lend because they CREATE money BY lending it. That is just a fact, which can be confirmed by consulting any good accounting textbook that treats bank bookkeeping.
#14895852
Being that you have responded with some grace for a change, I will give you a response:

Truth To Power wrote:All the pre-Darwinian speculation in moral and political philosophy is irrelevant because our identity is simply that of evolved creatures that exist on a genetic continuum. We aren't a deliberate creation separated from all other creatures by possession of souls, intelligence, or anything else but 23 chromosome pairs. All we can really expect to have in common is our ability to reproduce sexually with other members of our species. Accordingly, moral reason, political relations, etc. are simply characteristics we have evolved because they advantaged reproduction of the associated genes. They have no meaning or basis but to reproduce those genes.


But philosophy is more than the 'meaning of life'. In fact, little of it has to do with that. Philosophy is a chain of thought. Darwin doesn't address any philosophers work and he certainly doesn't discredit them either. All he has done is explained evolution. And that is a biological concept, nothing more, nothing less.

That depends on what you mean by, "meaning." It is objectively the case that human existence has no meaning but to survive and reproduce. The age-old question, "Why are we here?" has a factual, objectively correct answer: we are here because billions of generations of our ancestors did what they had to do to cast their genes into the future, to survive in the only way they could because given entropy, individual immortality was not an option. Each one of us is just the latest stage in an inconceivably long and arduous struggle to survive, reproduce, and leave surviving descendants, a struggle that 99.999+% of all the living organisms that have ever existed have failed at. There is a certain bleakness and emptiness in this conception of our existence, but also an unmistakable grandeur: to repay our heritage by our posterity in an infinite chain of obligation.


But that was not my point. If you are suggesting that Darwin has answered the question 'why are we here?', perhaps you have a point to some extent. But he doesn't address many other philosophical questions in regards to society, economics, the universe or meanings. And because of that, philosophy is still relevant.

Individual thought is delimited by genetic potentiality.


That and nurture, social environment and education.

If that is true (doubtful), it's something that can be understood as arising from our nature as evolved beings. But maybe it's just that the sun has a ~1000y cycle, and civilizations that thrived in climatic good times fall when the weather turns bad.

Nope. See above. Social similarities are just one possible factor.


Philosophy is a chain of thought reaching a conclusion from numerous factual factors. You can argue whether you agree with their conclusion or not. Many do. I certainly don't agree with Spengler with what I know of him. But I can't say I have ever read him to know for sure. But that does not mean that philosophy is hogwash. And it certainly doesn't mean that Darwin has discredited the practice either.

But evolution shows that social constructions ARE biological. Nietzsche just didn't want to deal with that. It's too cold and unforgiving.


Explain how a building is biological then. Or that social norms like the rule of law, capital, compassion or constitutions can be found in nature.

He just did not understand the facts that there is no "progression," and the only ultimately meaningful goal is survival.


Or that he (Hegels) was an idealist who was trying to understand where society was going. Human survival has little to do with his work. However you could (if you researched him enough) perhaps make a case that that statement is wrong. But that would require philosophical thought.

See above. And banks do not need money to lend because they CREATE money BY lending it. That is just a fact, which can be confirmed by consulting any good accounting textbook that treats bank bookkeeping.


Well you have softened your stance since last year when you claimed that deposits sit in a vault somewhere gathering dust, never to be used. But yes, banks create capital through interest and that a loan is a potential asset until it is paid off. But banks still need capital to begin with to be able to lend in the first place (otherwise we could all open up a bank) and more importantly should retain a fractional reserve to protect themselves from any potential future economic downturn.
#14896082
B0ycey wrote:But philosophy is more than the 'meaning of life'.

Yes, it is also a way of ordering one's mind. But moral and political philosophy are all about human nature, what we are, and that is what Darwin illuminated.
Darwin doesn't address any philosophers work and he certainly doesn't discredit them either. All he has done is explained evolution. And that is a biological concept, nothing more, nothing less.

No, evolution explains why we are what we are. It explains why it is pointless to seek ultimate meaning or values. The only value that matters in the long run is existence.
If you are suggesting that Darwin has answered the question 'why are we here?', perhaps you have a point to some extent. But he doesn't address many other philosophical questions in regards to society, economics, the universe or meanings. And because of that, philosophy is still relevant.

Actually, evolution does address those issues. It shows why we live in society, why we are able to think in terms of morality and what morality is.
That and nurture, social environment and education.

They can move thought within the limits defined by genetics. You will never get a dog to understand markets.
Philosophy is a chain of thought reaching a conclusion from numerous factual factors. You can argue whether you agree with their conclusion or not. Many do. I certainly don't agree with Spengler with what I know of him. But I can't say I have ever read him to know for sure. But that does not mean that philosophy is hogwash. And it certainly doesn't mean that Darwin has discredited the practice either.

In fact it is, largely, hogwash that Darwin discredited. You can easily see it in Victoribus's nonsense.
Explain how a building is biological then.

We make them to perform physical functions.
Or that social norms like the rule of law, capital, compassion or constitutions can be found in nature.

They are found in OUR nature, which is that of an evolved creature.
Well you have softened your stance since last year when you claimed that deposits sit in a vault somewhere gathering dust, never to be used.

I said no such thing. I said that customers' deposits are mainly used as reserves, while most deposits are CREATED by lending.
But yes, banks create capital through interest and that a loan is a potential asset until it is paid off.

So confused. Banks do not create capital through interest, they charge interest on money they create. And a loan is an asset on the bank's books, but it disappears as it is paid off, along with the money used to repay the principal (the interest is income for the bank).
But banks still need capital to begin with to be able to lend in the first place (otherwise we could all open up a bank)

You need a LICENSE to open a bank. That is very much the point. If you have a bank license, you can create money by getting people to sign up for loans. But bank licenses are only issued to rich, privileged greed robots with friends in high places.
and more importantly should retain a fractional reserve to protect themselves from any potential future economic downturn.

That is mere prudence. A bank does not need reserves to lend. It can just borrow them to meet the relevant statutory requirement (which some countries do not even have because it is superfluous).
#14896199
Truth To Power wrote:Yes, it is also a way of ordering one's mind. But moral and political philosophy are all about human nature, what we are, and that is what Darwin illuminated.

No, evolution explains why we are what we are. It explains why it is pointless to seek ultimate meaning or values. The only value that matters in the long run is existence.

Actually, evolution does address those issues. It shows why we live in society, why we are able to think in terms of morality and what morality is.

They can move thought within the limits defined by genetics. You will never get a dog to understand markets.

In fact it is, largely, hogwash that Darwin discredited. You can easily see it in Victoribus's nonsense.

We make them to perform physical functions.

They are found in OUR nature, which is that of an evolved creature.


You have an annoying habit of breaking down paragraphs into sentences and then respond with an even smaller sentence. So these are grouped together.

In essence you are saying that Darwin has discredited philosophy? I have actually read OTOOS and I can assure you he does nothing of the sort. All he does is use observations to reach a conclusion on a biology concept. There is definitely no human morality aspect to it and he also definitely doesn't address why human society has become what it is. The closest he gets to anything of a verdict is natural section. He does not, and I repeat this so you can understand properly, address human society, capital, social justice, the universe or rational thought.

I said no such thing. I said that customers' deposits are mainly used as reserves, while most deposits are CREATED by lending.

So confused. Banks do not create capital through interest, they charge interest on money they create. And a loan is an asset on the bank's books, but it disappears as it is paid off, along with the money used to repay the principal (the interest is income for the bank).

You need a LICENSE to open a bank. That is very much the point. If you have a bank license, you can create money by getting people to sign up for loans. But bank licenses are only issued to rich, privileged greed robots with friends in high places.

That is mere prudence. A bank does not need reserves to lend. It can just borrow them to meet the relevant statutory requirement (which some countries do not even have because it is superfluous).


I won't go into this in great deal as this is not the thread for it. But when I said create capital, I meant for the bank in the form of profits. Not new money. Only the central bank is able to do that as money is an IOU from the government (who also dictates the value of that IOU).

You have also repeated the same mistake you did last time when you declared 'that deposits sit in a vault gathering dust'. If deposits don't get used and are only a reserve, what is a fractional reserve to you and why pay interest on something you don't need?

Anyways, this is how a loan works. A bank has deposits. Using those deposits it can issue out a loan that becomes an asset on a spreadsheet. To you this is new money. It isn't. Because if every customer asks for their money back (a run in the bank), at some point the bank runs out of capital due to the loan assets it has created. So it needs a fractional reserve to protect themselves from such dangers. Whether all countries require a fractional reserve is irrelevant. It just means that banks in those countries are more toxic if they don't use one.

Also, banks in the form of very large loans will borrow from each other to limit the liability on themselves. Again why do this if they can 'create money'?
#14913982
B0ycey wrote:You have an annoying habit of breaking down paragraphs into sentences and then respond with an even smaller sentence.

I find it aids clarity. Most people don't want clarity. You are probably one of them.
In essence you are saying that Darwin has discredited philosophy?

In essence, he rendered much of philosophy obsolete by showing we need not look beyond natural selection for the explanation of ANY aspect of human nature.
I have actually read OTOOS and I can assure you he does nothing of the sort. All he does is use observations to reach a conclusion on a biology concept. There is definitely no human morality aspect to it and he also definitely doesn't address why human society has become what it is. The closest he gets to anything of a verdict is natural section. He does not, and I repeat this so you can understand properly, address human society, capital, social justice, the universe or rational thought.

He didn't do it intentionally, but that was the effect, just as the first measurements of the distances to stars were not performed to expose all previous cosmology as childish fabrications, but that was their effect.
But when I said create capital, I meant for the bank in the form of profits. Not new money. Only the central bank is able to do that as money is an IOU from the government (who also dictates the value of that IOU).

That's just flat false. Almost all our money is created by private banks through lending. Google "Positive Money" and start reading. Even MMT gets THAT much right.
You have also repeated the same mistake you did last time when you declared 'that deposits sit in a vault gathering dust'.

That is a baldly false claim about what I plainly wrote.
If deposits don't get used and are only a reserve,

They are used AS reserves.
what is a fractional reserve to you and why pay interest on something you don't need?

In practice, banks need reserves to meet their obligations in a timely fashion. If borrowers never took the loan proceeds out of their accounts, or only paid other customers of the same bank, banks would not need any reserves.
Anyways, this is how a loan works.

No it's not.
A bank has deposits. Using those deposits it can issue out a loan that becomes an asset on a spreadsheet.

<yawn> Wrong. Tell you what. Call up your local commercial bank and ask to speak to the accountant. Ask him or her which account loan proceeds are TAKEN OUT OF to be put into the borrower's account. If you are willing to know the answer, you may have an opportunity to learn something.
To you this is new money. It isn't.

It is indisputably new money, as you would know if you knew anything about economics or banking.
Because if every customer asks for their money back (a run in the bank), at some point the bank runs out of capital due to the loan assets it has created.

Wrong. It doesn't run out of capital. It runs out of reserves. Two different things. And it's not because they created loan assets, but because they created matching deposit liabilities.
When a payment is made from a borrower's account to another bank, the lending bank has to reduce the liability in his account by that amount. But obviously, it also has to make a balancing entry somewhere else: either an increased liability, or a reduced asset. Typically, it reduces its reserve asset because that is what it is for. THAT'S what it has to give the other bank, which consequently has more reserves to match the increased liability in its customer's account.

Just go to any good public or university library and find a textbook that describes banks' bookkeeping entries. It's all there.
So it needs a fractional reserve to protect themselves from such dangers.

Right. Its reserves are for PRUDENCE, not a fund to be lent out to borrowers.
Whether all countries require a fractional reserve is irrelevant.

No, because it proves you wrong.
It just means that banks in those countries are more toxic if they don't use one.

Funny, the Canadian banks that weathered the GFC so much better than American ones didn't have any statutory reserve requirement.
Also, banks in the form of very large loans will borrow from each other to limit the liability on themselves.

No, to provide themselves with liquidity.
Again why do this if they can 'create money'?

They can only create money if someone else will undertake to pay it back with interest.
#14914299
@Victoribus Spolia

I intend to engage in public debate and writing books as my main occupation besides my farm, so don't think i'm being an isolationist.


Do more than just write books. Engage in the real (not digital) political world from time to time. Given that you live in close proximity to D.C. and I assume at least one of your sons are old enough to take of the farm if you're not there, go there and simply experience it. Examine your environment and try to understand how politics in America not through the lens of others but through your own independent experience with it. Dedicate some time to understand the dynamics of power in D.C.. Go to some rallies in D.C. for any politician (Republican or Democrat) and observe them closely, identify what they're doing right and what they're doing wrong. Also pay close attention to the audience, find a way to understand how the crowd's feeling and what emotions the actions of the politician is putting into the hearts of the attendees. Understand how to get into those exclusive clubs or get it in with those high ranking people not to use them but to simply understand the way the current system works so that you may develop a way to work around it.

There is so much more I could be telling. You have the potential to be another Bismarck. Heck, many people here with clear defined ideologies are able to become another Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Caesar, or whatever. There is simply not a will, not an understanding of the opportunities they have that results in them refusing be the change they want to see in the world. Bismarck was a farmer just like you who just happened to believe very strongly in the idea that Germany should have a king. It was only after Bismarck went to the Vereinigter Landtag (the newly created Prussian congress) as a representative for a friend of his who was sick (and a congressman) and couldn't attend. It was there that his political career truly began.

Of course I don't think you're friends with a sick congressman who happens to need to attend a political meeting but that doesn't throw all your options out of the water. You can, if you want to, manage to get political power if you have the will to do so and change the world as you see fit. Now you might think to yourself, "What need do I have for political power? I am living my life perfectly secluded in my farm away from the ills of outside society so who cares about what happens outside my farm when it doesn't even affect me at all?". Then I ask, do you really think your happy little isolated life will last? Do you think that, with the way things are currently going, you won't be bothered whatsoever? Of course not, because even with Trump in power you have to remember one thing: Trump is an idiot. He only has a vague direction towards the right which he pushes America towards. He isn't firm in his political beliefs, doesn't like reading, and doesn't even write his own speeches. Trump is the perfect target for political manipulation as he has already been manipulated by Russia and now manipulated by his own cabinet. He knows nothing about being a good president let alone a king. He behaves in an amoral manner, is openly lascivious, and doesn't practice Christianity. Trump is bound not by pragmatism but by his emotions. If Trump doesn't like something, no matter how good that thing is, he'll still reject it. He is not going to be treating America well, regardless of how far right he is.

This lack of control leads to a power vacuum which leads to inactivity in the government which, in turn, leads to stagnation. Trump is an unstable ruler and has the potential to be one of the worst rulers in history if used as the pawn he is now. This "deep state" in the US government, with lots of different departments having their own plans for political survival is tearing apart the institutions of the US and making America more unstable. Anything can go now, and this goes for you achieving political power as well. Men want power for many reasons, but those of noble character, always want power to protect those precious to them. You don't want power to implement your ideas or want power for the sake of it, you want power to protect your family, community, and country.

The media is supposed to hold power to account. It[…]

The countries where feminism is failing to gain t[…]

During the recent negotiations between Kim Jong-no[…]

China has told the United States to butt out of a […]