The next big war might be over phosphorus

Hi ThomM,

Thanks for looking up and posting the data that confirms my original assertion that "The shrinking value of the dollar accounts for most of that price change over the past 55 year period." Pretty cool of you to do that.

The data you posted confirms that the majority of the price increase is due to inflation of the dollar, right? Hard to argue with math. Thank you.

Now, if we factor in the cost increases due to increased government regulation and taxes for that same time period I believe we can say the cost of the actual commodity, minus those government inflicted increases, has remained pretty stable, perhaps even declining a bit.

Please take a deep breath and relax. The world is not coming to an end, at least not due to a phosphorus shortage in the near future.

That article was just hyperbole, in my opinion, based on some socialists propaganda, not facts, not reality.

By the way, I am a proponent of sustainable farming methods, just not worried about some misinformed writer that was hired to spew propaganda at the masses. We can safely ignore such noise, it's just meant to scare you into giving up your freedom and rights over some fake controversy.

Agreed. It was more like he was arguing for a "neutered, disinterested government that would allow" individual rights to prevail, rather than a large tyrannical government to run wild.

Also said? What do you mean by "also"? I included those statements in the quote I provided, in context.

I find it very interesting that you chose to omit the sentences that provided the context for the part you quoted. Please take a look at my previous reply for the full quote in context.

Why would you want to strip out the sentences that provided the context for his statements?

Nope, he wasn't talking about the average Joe.

He was very specifically talking about the dangers of establishing a federal government. At that time the nation had no federal government at all. In fact, no place on earth had been free enough, for long enough, for a large private concern to come into existence. The only large financial concerns were large tyrannical governments.

I suspect that you knew that already. Perhaps, that is why you chose to leave out the sentences that provides the context that makes that quite clear?

Madison was arguing that governments are ran by men, not angels, therefore federal government needed to be restricted in it's power so that it would never have more power than an individual that might need to defend himself from the evil that men within the government will commit.

Actually, I would argue that history is mostly devoid of large financial concerns (in the form of corporations) going wild and inflicting serious damage on society. Throughout history it has been large governments that have inflicted serious damage on the society. Large corporations are a fairly recent invention, and have not existed for the majority of history.

I think that one could argue that the evilest of all large corporations have never committed atrocities on the scale of the most benign of all large governments. So, please, let's not demonize corporations and then suggest that increasing the powers of large governments will make the evil in men's hearts go away.

There is an inherent danger in amassing power in any form, but none more dangerous than amassing power within a large government. That would be the most important lesson we should learn from history, in my opinion.


I don't think anyone here is arguing for a lawless society. I know I am not.

However, I do believe in the nearly limitless resources that I see in this universe and love to see mankind prosper. I also believe in he concept of freedom, for man to rule his own destiny, and free enterprise, and wouldn't want to ever see that restricted in any way for any individual.

I cannot think of anything more unfair than to limit an individual's rights just so that he cannot prosper. Each individual should be allowed to prosper as much, or as little as he wants. When that is allowed you will have the greatest diversity in levels of wealth, and the largest number of men who are prospering.

I believe in the equal rights of all men. For all men to be treated equally under the law, you must protect the individual from the evil of the masses. If we allow a mob to strip the rights from an individual, simply because he has made the sacrifices needed to prosper beyond the common man, we are indeed violating the principle of equal protection, under the law. That's not government protecting people from evil corporations, that is mob rule. The looting of a man's life savings by a tyrannical government is what drove our founding fathers to declare Independence from Britain.

I also do not buy into the notion that concentrating wealth, in the form of working capitol, into the hands of people who know how to use that capital to generate even more wealth is detrimental to society. In fact, all evidence shows that the opposite is true, nowhere does society as a whole prosper except where capitol is allowed to flow to those who are great at producing wealth.

Somebody has been lying to you, don't take anyone's word. Please check the facts.

That's a great example. There was a worldwide depression, economists call those events "corrections". They are usually brief and reset the economy, flushing out the weak businesses and allowing the better ran business to flourish. The rest of the world recovered quickly, however the US remained in an extended depression. Why?

Many argue that it was excessive government interference by the FDR administration that kept the US economy locked into a 10 year long national nightmare. That's just one of many examples of big government run a muck.

The term "capitalism" as a pejorative, was not yet in use when Madison was alive, back then they called it "free enterprise". And yes, he was a very big proponent of Free Enterprise. The very definition of the term Free enterprise means the "freedom of private business to organize and operate for profit in a competitive system without interference by government beyond regulation necessary to protect public interest and keep the national economy in balance".

The term "Capitalism" was injected as pejorative into Carl Marx's writings when the Soviet Union had Marx's works rewritten to make it look like Marx had used that term himself.

I believe it's quite evident that Madison believed in the idea of Free enterprise, which requires the unfettered freedom from government, except where necessary to protect the rights of an individual.

History has shown us that no other system has generated more prosperity for more people than free enterprise, and that no system has ever come close the level of destruction of prosperity and misery that comes from big powerful governments.

Excuse me, the store isn't yours to give away. You must first confiscate it from those who rightly earned it before you can have it to give away. Governments don't create wealth, they only confiscate it, consume it, and interfere with the process that creates it.

I certainly do not argue against the need for government, only just as Madison argued, that governments should not have powers that exceed an individual's rights to defend themselves against abuse by those powers.

I agree, there has never been a perfect government ran by men. However I must disagree with your assertion that governments, particularly statist governments, are not the biggest threat to the populace. Just during the past 100 years we have seen more people killed in atrocities afflicted by governments on the people they govern, than all of the wars combined during that same period. A period which set new records in deaths due to warfare waged by those same governments. It seems you must ignore the entire historical record of mankind's existence to make such an assertion.

Yes, indeed.

During Madison's day, before the creation of the US, all large financial concerns were state-organized monopolies that benefited the few, based on the social class they were born into. They were highly inefficient and all, except those born into a small social class, suffered great impoverishment with no hope of ever prospering.

And since governments at that time had absolute power, and were made up of men who were no angels, they had infinity more power to abuse the populace, and routinely did just that.

It is only by limiting the powers of government that Free Enterprise can exist, and it is only under Free Enterprise that society as a whole is allowed to prosper. To use government as a means of attacking Free Enterprise simply because it has allowed an individual to prosper, is an abuse of power. No doubt, committed by a man, not an angel.

We mustn't pretend that governments are angels, that is the sentiment that Madison seemed to by expressing. Governments are men in power, not angels, with the infinite capacity to abuse that power.

Governments are indeed needed, but not for the purpose of "redistributing wealth". We need government to protect the rights of the smallest of minorities against the abuses of the majorities. The smallest minority is that of the individual. Government is at it's best when it's soul purpose is to protect individual rights against all who threaten them.