by Daryl Dominic Tan
In this day and age, you have various assortments of hipsters, you have music hipsters, film hipsters, art hipsters, fashion hipsters, and truth be told – there also exists a mob of pseudo-intellectual emotionally charged sycophants – the political hipsters. These hipsters - the focal point in this post - are mostly young, and their lack of understanding represents the very real and existing threat to the fundamental concepts of liberty and rights in today’s world, concepts that used to mean something in the past but have had their meanings tainted and warped as of recent times. Their source of information, energy and lifesblood? The media of course.
The media is like a sharp knife. Professor Joseph Raz likened the rule of law to that same sharp knife. The sharpness of a knife says nothing as to the use to which the knife may be put: beneficial surgery or murder. The media is a tool for promoting truth as is very much the opposite - a machine that is utilised by the government to promote false truths and to rest the proverbial woollen cloths over our eyes to keep us sedated through false comfort in the form of false “security”.
Throughout the 20th century, we were taught erroneously to believe that Nazism and Fascism were antithetical to Socialism and Communism. Journalists, being spurred on by their employers, would wrestle with the creative centres of their brains to churn out trendy and fashionable theories and false analyses of what the latest political trend was, and whether it was in tandem with the particular prevailing political morality of the time . But the truth has been distorted, and as brilliantly pointed out by F.A. Hayek in his seminal work ‘The Road to Serfdom’, labels tells us only one thing, that all these tyrannical forms of government are merely the outcomes of the same tendencies: a desire to arrogate increasing power to a centralized authority (and with no end in sight).
The important thing to realize here is that it is no longer about being Republican or Democrat, Right or Left, or Liberal or Conservative, These labels are merely illusory distractions to keep us satisfied with the same sort of system that the autocrats in power desire to keep in place - a bureaucratic system of government in which a bunch of washed out hacks decide what the future of its citizens should look like. All these forms of governmental systems only want power at the expense of your individual liberty. However, as F.A. Hayek again rightly surmised, "Rulers lack something that ruled individuals do not: knowledge of the subjects’ own particular circumstances". This isn’t Sims or Lego. Are we merely pawns at the disposal of the chess player, represented by none other than the state? It must come to be realized, that there is only one war; and it isn’t partisan at all - it is between Big Government policies and Small government policies. It is as simple as that.
When journalists continue to distract us by shedding light on the hypothetical Republican trying to introduce legislation to ban the teaching of sciences in public schools or promote the unity of church and state, and in the process telling us to support a more Democratic agenda because of how ridiculous a particular Republican looks, we fail to see the real relevancy which is being deliberately hidden from our scope of vision. We fail to rationalize our thoughts and see the truth, which is simply that big government policies – as policies alone – be they Republican or Democrat, or “liberal” or “conservative” - inevitably eradicate civil liberties, not personal or partisan ideologies. In being content with the options presented as being the only choices available, we are limiting our decisions to very unsatisfactory governmental systems.
The media has even taught us what to be, what to support, what to like, and has also taught us not to use the analytical faculties of our own minds to discern what is right on our own accord. One great example is the NSA Whistleblowing fiasco. I have never seen such blatant hypocrisy in my life until I observed the reaction to the Edward Snowden saga. Under George W Bush’s PATRIOT act which gave undue authority to the government to illegally wiretap its citizens without any warrant whatsoever under the pretext of national security, gargantuan proportions of people cried out in injustice. Under Obama’s administration and likely because of how highly decorated his reputation is thanks to the media - with superstars like Robert De Niro and Bono from U2 constantly being given attention for publicly supporting his campaigns - majority of the public has decided to turn a blind eye.. and it's probably not because they feel what he is doing is right, but merely rather because Obama is the one in power. That charming smiling African-American man who ostensibly represents all minorities in this country..“Must be doin’ the right thing” they mutter to themselves.
The state has brilliantly twisted the function and purpose of the media. It has been warped into an all-out indoctrinating apparatus and only a handful of honest and legitimate media sources and individuals (and I have to give mention to the wonderful Glenn Greenwald here) have retained the fortitude and courage today to make a difference by disseminating the truth in the face of adverse hostilities from the “politically correct” and “politically hip” camps.
Monday, December 17, 2012
By Daryl Dominic Tan
It has been about a little more than 24 hours since I woke up to the horrific news that 20 elementary school children between 5 to 10 years old were shot dead in cold blood in what is now known as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. 6 adults, who valiantly put up a strong resistance in doing all they could to protect the children were also brutally killed. I would therefore like to state here, that my thoughts and prayers are with the victims' families as well as the survivors of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and lastly, with the shooter's family members. It must be extremely difficult for Adam Lanza's family members to make sense of what transpired and how to live with the fact that their own blood is responsible for quite possibly the most monstrous act in American history.
I have had time to think and reflect about this tragedy, as many other people - though most of them overwhelmed with emotion were quick to call for executive orders to enact stricter gun laws, or for President Obama to ban guns completely and in the process violate the 2nd amendment, crying out in justification that "the right to bear fire arms is not more important than the right for children to grow up", which is the most ridiculous line I've come across all week.
It might be utterly distasteful to politicize a tragedy, but it is also important to analyze important events such as this to come to a conclusion. I know my opinion here will not be received warmly, and I am prepared to face certain backlash, but I stand by my opinions and I will not sway to the opinion of the emotionally overwhelmed who are nothing but blind to see the practical realities and political repercussions if such tight gun-control laws or an all-out gun ban policy were to ever be imposed by the federal government onto the citizens of the United States. The idea of a gun-ban policy fails on practical, factual and legal grounds.
Where I come from in Singapore, guns are virtually unheard of, and the only guns you will ever see are fastened tightly to the holsters of police men. The government here has done a perfectly good job (and I always give credit where credit's due) at keeping Singapore completely gun-free and as a result - safe from gun crime. It is a severe offence to be in possession of a firearm in Singapore, and if found in possession, the penalty of death will be meted out without hesitation. It is for this reason that many Singaporeans, or well, at least 99% of its population, support a total gun-ban in the United States. What annoys me is the naivety and ignorance they portray when they call for this ban. They do not realize the practical realities of living in the United States and how different it is. Singapore is much smaller (even this is an understatement) than the United States to the point that controlling the possession/smuggling of firearms is, for obvious reasons, much more efficient in Singapore.
It must be realized though that it is a whole different ballpark in the United States. If you don't already know what the War on Drugs is, here's a little bit of insight: it is an ongoing and failed government initiative to stamp out illegal drug trade. You may be wondering at this juncture what what drugs has got to do with gun control? I will elaborate further, but meanwhilst bear with me. What the war on drugs does in reality, is that it provides drug cartels a raise in profit. The very fact that there is a strict ban on drugs and an unrealistic attempt to outlaw its trade completely is exactly what breathes life to cartels in that their black market operations amass a wider-scale market and clientele. Violence is necessary as these cartels will need gangs to carry out their operations. This very fact effectively leads to more street crime. For the past 40 years, $1 trillion spent on this fruitless war on drugs have been wasted, most of them coming from the pockets of ordinary citizens to fund this incorrigible war. Problems on the borders are being magnified, and drug use and trade is still rampant in the United States. It is much harder to control smuggling in a country as vast as the United States. If kids want something, they will get it, regardless of tough laws. a 'War on Firearms' policy is going to breed the same results. Who knows, cartels pallying it up with corrupt stevedores or custom officials will expand their market to include firearms and the same thing will carry on with far more drastic consequences, coupled with more civil liberties being eroded constantly.
People who want safety are blind to political realities and repercussions that come along with it. Americans wanted safety after 9/11, they got the 'Patriot Act', a bill which gave the government undue authority to spy on citizens via e-mails and telephone calls with no warrant whatsoever - a blatant violation of a citizen's right to privacy as well as the Constitution. Americans wanted complete safety from Terrorists, (the solution is simple; end foreign intervention, especially drone strikes), what they got in return was the NDAA (The National Defense Authorization Act) which authorizes the president to indefinitely detain any person without trial. Let me repeat that: without trial. Is this what the Rule of Law has been reduced to? Let's take another instance, the Germans who believed that the Reichstag Fire was orchestrated by Communists allowed Hitler's regime to pass the 'Enabling Act' which practically allowed Hitler to do anything he wanted, under the pretext of national security. I wonder what happened following such an Act being passed. And yet, people wish to give up their civil liberties for the false blanket of security. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Those who give up liberty for a false sense of security, deserve neither." and he is completely right.
Apart from the fact that such a policy completely outlawing guns would fail, people would still be able to get their hands on guns. As I've said, we are talking about the United States of America here, a country of vast proportions, as compared to Singapore where regulation can be more efficient. Tell me then, what happens, when a crazed lunatic gets hold of a firearm through the black market and starts going bonkers at everyone in a crowded mall, or another school for that matter? Are Americans supposed to wait for the "ever efficient" police? It is a huge possibility seeing as to how humongous cities in the United States are that the police will take a long time to arrive at the scene of a crime. What happens during this time? What if an ordinary citizen of good character, had with him, a firearm and the ability to stop this lunatic from killing more innocent people at the time of the shooting? but let's take the premise that - no, because there is a gun-ban policy, he'd be vulnerable and hopeless in such an "ideal" world, ain't that right? The trust and faith these gun-control nutters have in the government and its corrupted officials is almost laughable. Everyone has a right to defend themselves. The only way you want to outlaw firearms TOTALLY with POSSIBLE(note here that I use the word POSSIBLE) effect is to install a totalitarian regime with a secret police force, similar to that of Stalin or Mao.
Why is it a fact too, that most of these horrible tragedies that have occurred, be they fatal school shootings, or some random lunatic going off his head deciding to fire up a mall as in the case of Oregon, take place in Gun-free zones where gun control laws are at its tightest? Simply because wolves go after sheep, not rams. Mass murderers want to inflict their sick desires on vulnerable people. Is it no coincidence that in states where there are relaxed gun-control laws, such mass murders are rarely heard of? Who the hell would dare to rob a goldsmith with a pistol if he were to know that the old grey-haired fogey behind the counter has with him a long-barrel shotgun to protect himself? Also, tell me, if you were living in a remote part of the States and you had a burglar break into your house, would you rather a telephone in your hand, or a gun?
The same goes for crazed lunatics. Why is it that most of them end up blowing their own brains rather than having a standoff with the police (when they finally arrive that is)? It's because human nature dictates that mentally ill or not - one is naturally afraid of being shot by another human being. And this is exactly why most of such tragedies occur in gun-free zones, because these madmen know how vulnerable these people are, unarmed and not having the means to defend themselves. Perhaps, fate would change if these gunmen had known possibly that there were arms within the compounds for the purpose of self-defense. This is effective deterrence - not giving more authority to an increasingly inefficient government that only seeks to strip away civil liberties.
There are also legal reasons as to why a gun ban will not solve the crisis in the United States. The most important being the fact that the 2nd Amendment, that is "the right to bear arms" is in a codified bill of rights which is part of the United States Constitution. Most people will simply scoff at that statement and retort with something along the lines of it being outdated and written in 1700s, and that it's not applicable in modern day society. I beg to differ - the Constitution was drafted by forward-thinking men that envisaged the strong possibility of a tyrannical government arising in the distant future and wanted every possible means to make sure that would never happen by limiting the scope of government. This was one such bill. It stands as an important bill today and it still is applicable. If you don't think so, please do me a favor and research past incidents such as the Wounded Knee Massacre, The My Lai Massacre, and the Ruby Ridge incident and tell me that the government is not complicit in gun crimes as well. Naivety and blind faith in the government will lead to liberties being eroded. And before you know it, it would be too late. When you hold the Founding Fathers' views in disregard, you disrespect the Constitution, when you do that, you undermine the Rule of Law, when you undermine the Rule of Law (intended - as F.A. Hayek stated many times - to create certainty within the law), you undermine justice and you would be in effect, inadvertently or not, promoting arbitrary lawmaking powers and giving the Executive absolute authority to do what it pleases.
It is for these reasons that I implore you, the emotionally charged individual, to wake up - to realize that overwhelming emotions lead to impulsive thoughts and decisions. A gun-ban, hell, even tighter gun control laws, ain't going to solve shit.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
by Daryl Dominic Tan
Do humans have ‘natural’ personalities? If so, when do we exhibit this ‘natural’ personality – with friends, family, or in solitude? What exactly is the state of nature of man’s personality? It is after all a fact that people exhibit different personalities – which I will term here as ‘masques’. People assume different forms of these masques to suit different occasions. Which, then, is our natural form? Are we predisposed to know what this natural form is?
Many will define the word ‘natural’ as being synonymous with ‘comfortable’. We exhibit our natural personality when and where we are most comfortable. Many feel most at ease – or rather, comfortable – with friends, but isn’t it a fact that being with friends, one has to portray himself or herself as likeable and compromising – efforts that are incompatible with the very notion of what ‘natural’ means, or at least what it ought to mean for ‘natural’ in its very basic form is also when we are free from all sorts of encumbrances.
What about family? Lest you be an orphan, one spends his first few years to first couple of decades of their lives with family. Is that then, the basis of form? And therefore one is truly himself and exhibits his ‘natural’ personality with his family? This argument is weak for it implies that time is a factor of this basis of form - that time builds nature, in that one who spends the most time with a particular group of people, and by way of case illustration here – family, is in a personal state of nature. So if we take this premise and look at a man imprisoned for life, does he assume a new personality based on a new nature based on his surroundings? That does not make sense, for how can nature be new, when all he would be doing is adapting to a new environment (not nature), and assuming a new persona, which is not equivalent to assuming a new natural personality for how can this be so when nature is supposed to be the basis of form – or rather the basis of all things in the first place?
What about solitude? The stronger argument of the three possible choices I’ve posited so far. That one is truly in accordance with his natural state of self when he is alone. This is plausible, but for the sake of argument, lets suppose one suffers great discomfort from being alone or isolated from the rest of society but derives great comfort from being surrounded by the people that he loves. Does the fact that he feels extremely uncomfortable – based on the notion that ‘’natural’ means ‘comfortable’ – invalidate this premise, in that he is clearly not exhibiting his natural personality for it is not compatible with his natural desire and natural emotion? Another way to challenge this premise is the very fact that in order for man to understand himself and his nature, he has to interact with society – for man is inherently a social creature. As the 18th century clergyman Richard Cecil once said, “Solitude shows what we should be; society shows us what we are”. Does man, therefore, know his nature only through interaction with other people as society shows us who we really are? If that were so, this premise falls flat of being able to tell us man’s natural personality.
Perhaps the strongest argument I can think of is that the answer of what the state of nature of man’s personality is a subjective and relativist one – that people based on their own free will, are in their ‘natural’ state of personality when they feel most natural – but that itself is difficult to define, I will however take the layman meaning here to mean, as earlier mentioned, that to be natural is to be absolutely comfortable. It is indeed clear that we all have different personalities – just as there are different animals that live in different natural habitats, so it must most certainly be that there is no one absolute nature – no objective nature, for nature differs with different people and animals and therefore it goes the same way with personalities. Just as contemporary students of the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras frequently surmise, “a spring day in Athens would be cold to a visitor from Egypt but warm to a traveler from Sweden and both would still be speaking the truth.” Therefore the true state of nature of man’s personality should depend on perspective and is therefore relative – and therefore Protagoras makes sense when he says that man is the measure of all things.
The tough question arises when you put the absolutist and relativist argument aside and ask yourself from an epistemological point of view – how do you know what is your natural habitat and what is your natural personality, which masque you put on makes you feel like you’re in synthesis with the rest of yourself and brings you peace of mind – and if that’s the case, my question will always be – how can a masque, no matter how comfortable you feel when you put it on, be a ‘natural’ personality when it is ultimately a masque and a masque, for axiomatic reasons, cannot be natural. Is the human mind really capable of discerning what our nature is? How do we know whether we belong in the ‘jungles’ or the ‘oceans’? A fish does not know that it lives in water, and to the fish water may not even exist because it lives within it.
Or perhaps, there is no need for relativism/absolutism argument here for the answer could be that ‘natural’ personality is merely made up of an amalgamation of different masques (although I’ve already mentioned earlier that a masque for axiomatic reasons cannot be natural, but for the sake of argument – we shall accept this premise here). But if so, this contradicts the form of nature – in that nature cannot be an amalgamation of different masques borne out of empirical experience for if that were so, then what precedes experience? How can nature be formed later when it has to be the basis of form? Tabula Rasa? A blank sheet? That can’t possibly be a ‘natural’ personality then for personality comprises of different characteristics, traits, and habits that are innate to oneself – hence a ‘natural’ personality. But empiricists tend to reject the idea of innateness, and will argue convincingly at the end of the day that a ‘natural’ personality will be borne out of characteristics, traits, habits and way of thought acquired through a life of experience, and therefore since life and its events are constantly changing, I come to a conclusion that there can be no ‘natural’ personality. Perhaps the word ‘natural’ itself is a misnomer, and possibly even the word ‘personality’ in this context, and that there is no one true personality of man. Therefore, man could be deceiving himself all along when he speaks about his own personality, for in reality man has no face, just a collection of different masques.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
By Daryl Dominic Tan
Libertarianism is a philosophy which should never be compartmentalized into the political paradigm of left or right. Liberty, of which Libertarianism is derived from, exists as an inherent component in each of our personalities. It is an unfortunate fact however, that most of us have been brainwashed into thinking that liberty is synonymous with having the government take care of us from cradle to grave. Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of the United States, said once “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.” This is exactly what has been happening - the government exercises so much authority now that it can simply destroy our lives whenever it wishes to do so. We have simply given the government so much power and authority that they blatantly enforce their policies through legislative cobbling onto our personal lives – all under the pretext of serving the majoritarian voices. What people fail to see is that civil liberties are slowly being eroded as a result.
I grew up a rebel, and I believe I will die one. However, I’m no rebel without a cause. I’ve always believed in standing up to injustice brought upon by authority. I’ve never been loud enough as a person to partake in the activities of an activist, but I prefer a more subtle approach, in the form of writing, etc. I deplore most forms of institutionalized authority and for very good reason, they serve only to protect their own interests under the guise that they are serving to protect ours – we all know that is a fallacy.
Truth is, we live in a police state where big brother constantly monitors our actions unbeknownst to us. Any little incendiary remark lands us right behind bars without any form of proper trial, and the reason why most of us continue to love this establishment is because it apparently enforces safety. This is a fallacy that many people don’t get. The only reason why we are “safe” is because we live in a police state. We might be safe from other people, but we aren’t safe from the government. I will not compromise my liberty for false security, because true security is about securing our rights to personal freedom and liberty. That is safety and that is security. The government’s role to play is to protect those liberties and not destroy them.
Some of these civil liberties that I’m talking about include the right to exercise freedom of expression and by incidental extension, freedom of speech, and to run our lives the way we see fit as long as we do not harm others. It is up to every individual how he or she wants to live his or her life free from the institutionalized bureaucracy that our government imposes upon us. If we wish to educate our children at home, what right does the government have to take them away and indoctrinate them under the standards that they draw out?
I’ve always been called an idealist and a dreamer of sorts, and many practicalists, the so-called rational and matured members of society are strongly opposed to my beliefs, chief among reasons – that they are impractical, and that we have to work together as a collective force to bring about a harmonious society. I don’t know about you, but that sure as hell sounds like socialism to me, which is of course a bad thing because socialism supports the idea of a centralized government regulating and deciding our lives for us.
What truly brings about a harmonious society, is a proper understanding of individualism, not the tainted notion that it promotes selfishness. Each and every one of us are different in our own special way. We are wired differently, and that, my friends, is a beautiful thing. The fact that we are all so different and individualistic fosters a marketplace of ideas and opinions. We learn from each other through this sharing of information and we are able to grow as a society. Clearly, the government is against that. It wants us to either be obedient sheep, or mindless robots. Take your pick.
Now, let’s look at the water-diamond paradox. Why is it that diamonds cost so much more than water, when clearly we need water to survive and not diamonds. Keynesian economists, those that support the idea of a strong centralized federal government created such a paradox because they looked at water and diamonds as an entire stock when they shouldn’t be doing so. The answer lies in individual units. A diamond is more expensive because it is sold as an individual unit, not diamondS, which are an entire stock. This is how we should put things in perspective to understand things more simply, by viewing us, people, as individual units as opposed to an entire stock of factory produce.
The public school system that we are all part of is a fallacy as well. It isn’t really education, it is indoctrination. We are being indoctrinated with government-sponsored information, re-edited in order to inculcate harebrained respect for authority. Mark Twain once said “Never let schooling get in the way of your education”, and till today, I hold this statement in high reverence. And while we are on the topic of public school system, let me also quote the great Stefan Molyneux for saying that “children are sealed up in the 18th century mental prisons for years, while their futures are sold off to the highest bidder.”
Now, the progressive practicalists will argue the case of welfare, that in the system that I strongly promote, a libertarian society, we will be poverty stricken without the welfare state. Well, contrary to popular belief, the welfare state incapacitates the poor even further by ridding their chances of ever becoming prosperous. As Peter Schiff said, “If you care about the poor, fight for their right to trade, to contract, and to keep the fruits of their labor.” The free-market, as described by Adam Smith as the invisible hand should be what regulates the economy, not a power-hungry money-making machine such as the federal government. Prices coupled with supply and demand do not lie.
When government is out of the market, more businesses spring up due to relaxed regulations and what clearly happens when there are more businesses – is that there are more jobs. The problem is that exercising a tight control over the market is doing just the opposite. When the government gets out of healthcare, more hospitals are set up, there is less regulation in the health sector and what follows is lower costs due to healthy competition in the market. This allows for formerly poor people to be able to afford private healthcare, known to man as always being much more viable than public healthcare.
It is certainly much better than dumping your tax money on the hypothetical irresponsible obese person with severe diabetes who intentionally eats junk food every day though he knows full well the consequences of his actions. You can call me heartless, but I believe I would be doing the guy a favor. By eliminating such redistributionist programs, he has no other choice but to take responsibility of eating less, watching his diet, and keeping healthy, simply because he knows now that he is going to bear the full costs of his own healthcare.
Unfortunately, as Thomas Hobbes rightly surmises, "life is nasty, brutish and short". For the much poorer people who lead extremely unfortunate lives, I believe in a privatized welfare scheme or private charity where the act of giving and kindness is much more sincere than having a large sum of your hard-earned money taken away by the government, mismanaged, and then an amount, unbeknownst to yourself, is then taken to help “financially sustain” those unfortunate individuals. A lower tax rate or a full elimination of a personal income tax will lead to people donating their money more sincerely to charity. If you believe in liberty in the truest sense of the word, you also believe in voluntaryism – that every human action should be voluntary and not based on forceful coercion. That, my friends, is what liberty is truly all about.
Friday, November 04, 2011
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Here's a little short film I created on xtranormal.com. It's a conversation between 2012 United States presidential candidate, Ron Paul, and a purely fictional Progressive Liberal character named Sam Johnson. ENJOY!
Thursday, October 13, 2011
By Daryl Dominic Tan
A brilliant example of strange bedfellows would be the progressive left-leaning Liberals and fiscal conservative Libertarians marching together on the streets of New York City as part of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Odd yet fascinating as despite comprehensively different political views, many are starting to see the discrepancies in Wall Street and are now stepping up to the plate against the very evils that are causing the inflation of the American dollar and the suffering of the middle-class Americans – Corporatism, also known as Crony Capitalism.
If any one word could be used to sum up these evil entities accurately, it is greed. Unfortunately though, a large majority of people (comprising mainly of Socialists and advocates of central-planning) always fail to grasp that there is a difference between Capitalism and Corporatism. The word “Capitalism” itself has largely become a pejorative, immediately denoting exploitation of the poor at the expense and benefit of the wealthy. This is not true however, as free market capitalism is about privatized profits and privatized losses and provides greater opportunities for the unemployed and lower costs of products as a result of healthy market competition. Corporatism AKA Crony Capitalism on the other hand, is the truest definition of a system that absolutely incapacitates the working and middle class. Corporatism doesn't favor the free market, for it is all about having their own corporate interests protected by the government who are readily in bed with them. Competition is eradicated and prices are driven up contributing to the inequality rate.
Much to the displeasure of the common man, most political decisions that the government make are largely influenced by corporations and likewise. Who funds these corporations and make them "too big to fail"? None other than the infamous and much hated Federal Reserve, the single largest man-made disaster the United States has ever created in the history of its existence. The Federal Reserve was established in 1913 in Jekyll Island, Georgia, with the sole intent of establishing a more efficient central banking system. The idea of a Federal Reserve was conceived by many billionaire bankers, most notably J.D. Rockefeller and J.P Morgan.
Exactly 20 years later since its enactment and at the peak of its activity, the Fed effectively caused the United States government to declare bankruptcy under Franklin D. Roosevelt. The inefficiency of the fed has been displayed on a regular basis and has always been the cause of an economic crisis or a bubble burst, most notably when Alan Greenspan became director and kept interest rates too low. The result of his actions led the economy of the United States to plummet in the early 90s. Current director of the Fed, Ben Bernanke, not to be outdone, has constantly called for the creation of paper money out of thin air (also known as Quantitative Easing) to bail out inept companies that have simply overspent their budget due to their own greed, resulting in a sharp and dangerous increase of executive powers allocated to the Federal Reserve.
How then, does the Federal Reserve affect every other American, and the world in general? The answer is by manipulating the global currency through devaluing, deprecating and debasing the American Dollar. This in turn, affects everybody's wealth as currency value dramatically takes a plunge. The Federal Reserve behaves like a criminal enterprise, or as many would say, an international banking cartel. What makes it all the more frightening is that the Federal Reserve is run by a coalition of powerful banks. Therefore, in essence, the entire United States economy is being run and observed by banks, all under the watchful eye and support of the government .
It is hereby somewhat comforting to know that one of the main agendas of the Occupy Wall Street protests is to end the fed. People are starting to realize that a Fiat-based currency and a fractional reserve banking system simply won't work as it exploits the other classes of society and only serves to promote a corporatist agenda.