Swedish feminist party burn $13,000 of donations to make a point

Alex89 wrote:

The U.S. Republican Party pissed away way more money than that clothing the lovely lady seen in my avatar. It didn't seem to stop people from donating to them. Neither did the lesbian bondage parties.

At least these ladies were trying to make a point.

Not a fan of putting things in context of a larger event, when that event is not directly connected, not even for trolling. (That's why I don't troll the Something Bad thread by pointing out that Africa still has AIDS)

The GOP also pissed away human lives (Middle East, heyo) so, on the graph of me getting worked up over stuff, the line just takes a dive into dispassionate loathing as nothing they say or do phases me anymore.

This is so far in the initial stages so the line is high, as their idiocy gets bigger (like say, if the were to propose penis taxes) the line will dive and then go up again, and then it will fall off and join GOP.

Yes, 13k is pretty much a drop in the water for anyone but middle-middle and lower class families; and this party so far looks like garden variety idiots with vaguely misandrist rhetoric, relying on special interest group voting base.

HEY GUYS

gaijinguy wrote:

OK, I did a little poking around and from what I've been able to find (nothing really authoritative, unfortunately) it apparently isn't illegal to destroy currency in Sweden.

Which is odd, and. . . what's that other word. . . oh yeah: "Stupid."

Why?

Seule wrote:

HEY GUYS

gaijinguy wrote:

OK, I did a little poking around and from what I've been able to find (nothing really authoritative, unfortunately) it apparently isn't illegal to destroy currency in Sweden.

Which is odd, and. . . what's that other word. . . oh yeah: "Stupid."

Why?

Because it's got the Queen's face on it, so it's treason, innit.

ZoZo wrote:

Seule wrote:

HEY GUYS

gaijinguy wrote:

OK, I did a little poking around and from what I've been able to find (nothing really authoritative, unfortunately) it apparently isn't illegal to destroy currency in Sweden.

Which is odd, and. . . what's that other word. . . oh yeah: "Stupid."

Why?

Because it's got the Queen's face on it, so it's treason, innit.

You're treason. :<


No but seriously, why?

Seule wrote:

HEY GUYS

gaijinguy wrote:

OK, I did a little poking around and from what I've been able to find (nothing really authoritative, unfortunately) it apparently isn't illegal to destroy currency in Sweden.

Which is odd, and. . . what's that other word. . . oh yeah: "Stupid."

Why?

Because it removes currency from circulation off-schedule.

Yeah, if you destroy fucktons of it it might make a difference, but why make it illegal? Not many people are in the habit of destroying a large quantity of their own valuable possessions. Hey, it may make a difference to the value of a precious metal if you destroy a large quantity of it, same with anything. Doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Seule wrote:

Yeah, if you destroy fucktons of it it might make a difference, but why make it illegal? Not many people are in the habit of destroying a large quantity of their own valuable possessions. Hey, it may make a difference to the value of a precious metal if you destroy a large quantity of it, same with anything. Doesn't mean it should be illegal.

You're right; at these amounts, it's not actually a huge deal- I'm sure laundry accidents and so on remove far more currency from circulation than this little stunt did. OTOH, the government has no business allowing this kind of behavior- I think it should be illegal more as a nod to the government's authority over the money supply rather than for reasons of prosecution or anything like that.

gaijinguy wrote:

Seule wrote:

Yeah, if you destroy fucktons of it it might make a difference, but why make it illegal? Not many people are in the habit of destroying a large quantity of their own valuable possessions. Hey, it may make a difference to the value of a precious metal if you destroy a large quantity of it, same with anything. Doesn't mean it should be illegal.

You're right; at these amounts, it's not actually a huge deal- I'm sure laundry accidents and so on remove far more currency from circulation than this little stunt did. OTOH, the government has no business allowing this kind of behavior- I think it should be illegal more as a nod to the government's authority over the money supply rather than for reasons of prosecution or anything like that.

Huh? You really think this kind of thing should be illegal by default? Sorry, but I can think of absolutely no good reason to ban something like this. Any and all restrictions on freedom of speech had better have a very good reason behind them. The one you gave is petty at best.

Most governments would do a happy dance if their tender cash or whatever is its name was destroyed. Bills and coins are not the richness of a nation, in fact they express the debt of the state towards the owner of the money. Why should you protest if your creditor burns your IOU?

The Unoriginal wrote:

Most governments would do a happy dance if their tender cash or whatever is its name was destroyed. Bills and coins are not the richness of a nation, in fact they express the debt of the state towards the owner of the money. Why should you protest if your creditor burns your IOU?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The government doesn't have a normal relationship with money, since they're the issuing authority. This means that retained currency is effectively unissued and removed from circulation.

Second, money is information. By burning the paper, you haven't actually changed the amount of stuff in the economy, you've just reduced the amount of paper available to trade for it. The government's liability remains unchanged, it's simply distributed differently. Third, this redistribution is accomplished by making all remaining money worth more. This exacerbates all debts, not just public ones, and can lead to economic disaster if unchecked.

So, yeah, the government has a vested interest in other people not dicking around with the money supply.

gaijinguy wrote:

The Unoriginal wrote:

Most governments would do a happy dance if their tender cash or whatever is its name was destroyed. Bills and coins are not the richness of a nation, in fact they express the debt of the state towards the owner of the money. Why should you protest if your creditor burns your IOU?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The government doesn't have a normal relationship with money, since they're the issuing authority. This means that retained currency is effectively unissued and removed from circulation.

Second, money is information. By burning the paper, you haven't actually changed the amount of stuff in the economy, you've just reduced the amount of paper available to trade for it. The government's liability remains unchanged, it's simply distributed differently. Third, this redistribution is accomplished by making all remaining money worth more. This exacerbates all debts, not just public ones, and can lead to economic disaster if unchecked.

So, yeah, the government has a vested interest in other people not dicking around with the money supply.

I have no problem with the government taking reasonable action to prevent other people inflating the value of the currency, but as far as I can tell, banning burning money doesn't constitute reasonable action at this time.

Anon wrote:

I have no problem with the government taking reasonable action to prevent other people inflating the value of the currency, but as far as I can tell, banning burning money doesn't constitute reasonable action at this time.

So. . . there's nothing wrong with the government not wanting people to manipulate the value of the currency, but it's not reasonable to use the law to prevent them from doing exactly that?

Okay then.

gaijinguy wrote:

Anon wrote:

I have no problem with the government taking reasonable action to prevent other people inflating the value of the currency, but as far as I can tell, banning burning money doesn't constitute reasonable action at this time.

So. . . there's nothing wrong with the government not wanting people to manipulate the value of the currency, but it's not reasonable to use the law to prevent them from doing exactly that?

Okay then.

You call this protest 'manipulating the value of the currency'? Hardly. Banning something that was only done in a one off protest with negligible impact just in case the practice becomes sufficiently widespread to affect the economy, even though there is no evidence if any such thing occurring is hardly reasonable. Actually, it's more like paranoia. There is simply no point in doing it at this time.

Anon wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Anon wrote:

I have no problem with the government taking reasonable action to prevent other people inflating the value of the currency, but as far as I can tell, banning burning money doesn't constitute reasonable action at this time.

So. . . there's nothing wrong with the government not wanting people to manipulate the value of the currency, but it's not reasonable to use the law to prevent them from doing exactly that?

Okay then.

You call this protest 'manipulating the value of the currency'? Hardly.

Pretty sure he's speaking about the issue on a larger scale.

Anon wrote:

Banning something that was only done in a one off protest with negligible impact just in case the practice becomes sufficiently widespread to affect the economy, even though there is no evidence if any such thing occurring is hardly reasonable. Actually, it's more like paranoia. There is simply no point in doing it at this time.

You're an idiot.

InkWeaver wrote:

Anon wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Anon wrote:

I have no problem with the government taking reasonable action to prevent other people inflating the value of the currency, but as far as I can tell, banning burning money doesn't constitute reasonable action at this time.

So. . . there's nothing wrong with the government not wanting people to manipulate the value of the currency, but it's not reasonable to use the law to prevent them from doing exactly that?

Okay then.

You call this protest 'manipulating the value of the currency'? Hardly.

Pretty sure he's speaking about the issue on a larger scale.

That's the thing. I'm not sure there is a 'larger scale' for this issue. Nor do I believe that there is likely to be one. That's why I don't think it makes sense to ban burning money. There's nothing wrong with the government not wanting people to manipulate the value of the currency, but it's not reasonable to introduce a law that would result in spending resources chasing up small numbers of people whose activities have no real impact while failing to address any actual problems or even threats.

Quote :

You're an idiot.

That's a bit rich coming from Mr 'There is no such thing as patriarchy'. 

Anon wrote:

That's the thing. I'm not sure there is a 'larger scale' for this issue. Nor do I believe that there is likely to be one. That's why I don't think it makes sense to ban burning money. There's nothing wrong with the government not wanting people to manipulate the value of the currency, but it's not reasonable to introduce a law that would result in spending resources chasing up small numbers of people whose activities have no real impact while failing to address any actual problems or even threats.

Do you put on a condom before or after you get an STD or get a girl pregnant? Also, governments don't dedicate resources to unreported crimes, so they aren't wasting any. And also, they cannot retroactively hold people accountable, in case they get fucked up.

Anon wrote:

That's a bit rich coming from Mr 'There is no such thing as patriarchy'.

How is this relevant to your idiocy?

Psy-4 wrote:

Anon wrote:

That's the thing. I'm not sure there is a 'larger scale' for this issue. Nor do I believe that there is likely to be one. That's why I don't think it makes sense to ban burning money. There's nothing wrong with the government not wanting people to manipulate the value of the currency, but it's not reasonable to introduce a law that would result in spending resources chasing up small numbers of people whose activities have no real impact while failing to address any actual problems or even threats.

Do you put on a condom before or after you get an STD or get a girl pregnant?

When you have sex, there is a real possibility that you will catch an STD or end up getting a girl pregnant. Taking preventative measures to deal with actual threats is different to taking preventative measures against threats that are purely theoretical.

Quote :

Also, governments don't dedicate resources to unreported crimes, so they aren't wasting any. And also, they cannot retroactively hold people accountable, in case they get fucked up.

I was assuming that there would still be a few cases, very occasionally, where people fell foul of this law. If even that isn't true, then it pretty much makes my point for me. We are discussing a non-issue.  

People manipulating the value of the currency by burning money isn't even close to being a problem so a law against it would, at best, be completely useless. Gaijinguy's arguments sound solid enough but they are entirely academic. This is probably why the government hasn't bothered to ban burning money.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

That's a bit rich coming from Mr 'There is no such thing as patriarchy'.

How is this relevant to your idiocy?

Given the displays of immense stupidity you have, repeatedly, put on recently, you should be careful about calling others stupid. Until someone provides evidence of an actual threat or problem arising from people burning money, the thrust of my argument is legitimate however stupid you think some of the sentiments expressed are. Which, by the way, is much better than can be said for your stance on patriarchy.

Anon wrote:

Given the displays of immense stupidity you have, repeatedly, put on recently, you should be careful about calling others stupid. Until someone provides evidence of an actual threat or problem arising from people burning money, the thrust of my argument is legitimate however stupid you think some of the sentiments expressed are. Which, by the way, is much better than can be said for your stance on patriarchy.

Blatant ad-hom. Psy-4's stance on the patriarchy (which we will not discuss here, since there's already at least a thread or two about it) is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and your attempt to bring it up is a transparent attempt to summon allies from a totally different discussion because you've discovered you're losing this argument. If you'll pardon the patriarchal expression, "man up" and fight your own battles.

TheHermit wrote:

Anon wrote:

Given the displays of immense stupidity you have, repeatedly, put on recently, you should be careful about calling others stupid. Until someone provides evidence of an actual threat or problem arising from people burning money, the thrust of my argument is legitimate however stupid you think some of the sentiments expressed are. Which, by the way, is much better than can be said for your stance on patriarchy.

Blatant ad-hom. Psy-4's stance on the patriarchy (which we will not discuss here, since there's already at least a thread or two about it) is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and your attempt to bring it up is a transparent attempt to summon allies from a totally different discussion because you've discovered you're losing this argument. If you'll pardon the patriarchal expression, "man up" and fight your own battles.

Sorry about this. I wasn't asking for help, I just wanted to rip Psy-4 one for calling me an idiot after the sheer stupidity of some of the arguments he's made elsewhere, which I had no real plans to go into in any further detail.
As for losing the argument, well not really. I may have phrased myself poorly, but my point is that making laws that restrict civil liberties solely on the basis of academic arguments isn't a sensible thing to do and that banning the burning of money is an example of this. That point has yet to be effectively countered.

Even acknowledging that the money was donated to be burned, this was insanely stupid.

Even if all the money was compromised of, perhaps, forged notes, thereby making the burning perfectly legal. Ah, good old cynicism.

Even if it's a stunt they don't ever perform again.

Many potential donators may be put off, concerned that their money donated to this feminist group may be burned.

Anon wrote:

As for losing the argument, well not really. I may have phrased myself poorly, but my point is that making laws that restrict civil liberties solely on the basis of academic arguments isn't a sensible thing to do and that banning the burning of money is an example of this. That point has yet to be effectively countered.

I think the point is that fiat money is a public representation of a private resource. What the money represents -the idea of wealth- is the property that one can do with as one sees fit. The notes themselves are public property.

Right now the best way I guess I could put it is: It's one thing to burn books you bought as a form of protest, another one entirely to set fire to the library because some of your tax money went into it.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Even acknowledging that the money was donated to be burned, this was insanely stupid. 

Even if all the money was compromised of, perhaps, forged notes, thereby making the burning perfectly legal. Ah, good old cynicism.Even if it's a stunt they don't ever perform again.Many potential donators may be put off, concerned that their money donated to this feminist group may be burned.

Well, yeah, it's stupid. Burning things to make a point tends to send out the message 'We are crazy.' rather than the point they are trying to make.

Quote :

I think the point is that fiat money is a public representation of a private resource. What the money represents -the idea of wealth- is the property that one can do with as one sees fit. The notes themselves are public property.

Right now the best way I guess I could put it is: It's one thing to burn books you bought as a form of protest, another one entirely to set fire to the library because some of your tax money went into it.

First, it might be better to compare it to burning library books rather than the library itself. Second, if you burn library books, the library will come after you and anyone could see why it would come after you. Since burning money is legal, that's kind of like the library saying it doesn't mind if you burn a few of its books.

The question being discussed is should burning money be banned. All you've demonstrated is that the government is within its rights to ban burning money if it sees fit to do so. That is slightly different from it being sensible or even a good idea. Making it illegal to burn money might stop protests like this, but so what? It won't stop people from burning money in large amounts and causing deflation, because evidence shows that they don't do that anyway, except possibly after the kind of hyper-inflation that occurred in 1930's Germany. So, why should the government ban burning money? What does that accomplish? Also, it shouldn't be banned by default, because this is at least partly a civil liberties issue. If people started doing it on mass and it began to affect the economy, I can see that banning it might become necessary. Right now, however,  there's no real point.

ETA: I found a case study here on Taiwan, where they traditionally burn large amounts of money. The authorities there started banning for environmental rather than economic reasons.

Anon wrote:

If people started doing it on mass and it began to affect the economy, I can see that banning it might become necessary. Right now, however, there's no real point.

Because why use foresight when making laws, right?

Anon wrote:

I just wanted to rip Psy-4 one for calling me an idiot

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] You're so cute when you're trying too hard.

I think it's because the government likes to know how much real money is in circulation that they banned burning money.