Video: Dr. Paul on HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher

[MMIKEYJ]

This was a very good video. Bill Maher asks pertinent questions regarding the economy and what is the cause and solution. Its very nice to see him quietly listen and learn. It was nice that he put RP on first on his first show of the new season.


Y_bh6RGWjdY

[Dejavu]

LOL @ Ron Paul. Seriously, what is this guy gonna do? Lecture the state?

The man might be 'good hearted' but he goes to work with thieves, thugs, and murderers on a daily basis.

[Qayin]

Ron paul is the obama for libertarians

one man cant change a entire system.

[MMIKEYJ]

You guys seem a bit jaded

[IcarusAngel]

The existence of people who actually think capitalism is small government and maximized freedom shake my confidence in humanity. Them, and all the other religious dogmatists out there, whether they be promoters of Jihad, the crusades, or self-ownership.

[Dejavu]

Ron paul is the obama for libertarians

one man cant change a entire system.

Cult of personality.

[R_P_A_S]

Ron Paul! who?

Seriously, can't stand this guy.

[Qayin]

Im not jaded
this guy is a cappie plain and simple

[MMIKEYJ]

Ron Paul! who?

Seriously, can't stand this guy.
C'mon, Ron Paul is the best.

What's there not to like?

[Kassad]

The Ron Paul supporters completely baffle me. Minimal doses of free trade and deregulation have led to multiple economic crashes and recessions, as well as the destruction of impoverished nations, such as Ecuador, Panama and Guatemala. What's Ron Paul's solution? Do it more! He's a wealthy white doctor, so why should he care? That's literally the pillar of libertarian logic. I have never met an unemployed libertarian or an impoverished constitutionalist because they see directly what those policies do to the working class.

Ron Paul gets his jollies from pretending to ruffle the feathers of the ruling class when, in truth, he is the bourgeoisie poster child. If he supported the military-industrial occupations of Iraq and potential wars in Iran, Gaza and in Africa, he would be elected in a landslide with support from the corporate media. What baffles me is that the American Constitution was written by white, wealthy slaveholders claiming that "all men are created equal." This should set off red flags with the Ron Paul nutjobs, but apparently they aren't as bright as we thought they were... wait.

You know what's the kicker? The Ron Paul "revolution" advocates the ideology of the Founding Fathers, right? George Washington (wealthy, white, landowner), Thomas Jefferson (slave rapist, wealthy, white, landowner), Alexander Hamilton (white, landowning, racist.) and those types? They advocated a system of 'checks and balances' where each branch of government oversees the other, right? So why do the libertarians, who support the Founders so much, want to leave corporate power totally unchecked? That's a question that is never answered because, frankly, any answer in support of corporate deregulation is the antithesis of human stability and it is abhorrent to the development of sound economics.

Fuck you, Ron Paul.

[MMIKEYJ]

The Ron Paul supporters completely baffle me. Minimal doses of free trade and deregulation have led to multiple economic crashes and recessions, as well as the destruction of impoverished nations, such as Ecuador, Panama and Guatemala. What's Ron Paul's solution? Do it more! He's a wealthy white doctor, so why should he care? That's literally the pillar of libertarian logic. I have never met an unemployed libertarian or an impoverished constitutionalist because they see directly what those policies do to the working class.

Ron Paul gets his jollies from pretending to ruffle the feathers of the ruling class when, in truth, he is the bourgeoisie poster child. If he supported the military-industrial occupations of Iraq and potential wars in Iran, Gaza and in Africa, he would be elected in a landslide with support from the corporate media. What baffles me is that the American Constitution was written by white, wealthy slaveholders claiming that "all men are created equal." This should set off red flags with the Ron Paul nutjobs, but apparently they aren't as bright as we thought they were... wait.

You know what's the kicker? The Ron Paul "revolution" advocates the ideology of the Founding Fathers, right? George Washington (wealthy, white, landowner), Thomas Jefferson (slave rapist, wealthy, white, landowner), Alexander Hamilton (white, landowning, racist.) and those types? They advocated a system of 'checks and balances' where each branch of government oversees the other, right? So why do the libertarians, who support the Founders so much, want to leave corporate power totally unchecked? That's a question that is never answered because, frankly, any answer in support of corporate deregulation is the antithesis of human stability and it is abhorrent to the development of sound economics.

Fuck you, Ron Paul.
I could probably answer your questions, but Im not sure if you really want to hear it, or if you're ready to hear it.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Wow everyone's hating on the good doctor. Well, I'll just say that I like Ron Paul, especially when he was running against that plastic robot Romney and the Ghoul, along with that dumbass Fred Thompson (qualification for presidency: saving thousands of lives from terrorist attack in Die Hard 2).

I find it surprising that nobody here gives props for his call to bring all US troops home, from Japan to Germany and everything in between. The CPUSA tells it's donors, like TomK, to vote for the guy who's now raising troop levels to Afghanistan by 50%. Also, his bashig of the war on drugs is something unheard in recent times, and it is most refreshing.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

C'mon, Ron Paul is the best.

What's there not to like?

He's heterosexist and sexist, for one. And he has no clue about the historical development of capitalism, much like most Austrian school advocates. Gold standard is his second religion. Someone should tell the good doctor the first two countries to emerge from the Great Depression were also the first countries to get off of gold. (Sweden and Germany)

[Demogorgon]

He's heterosexist and sexist, for one. And he has no clue about the historical development of capitalism, much like most Austrian school advocates. Gold standard is his second religion. Someone should tell the good doctor the first two countries to emerge from the Great Depression were also the first countries to get off of gold. (Sweden and Germany)

Aye, the gold standard thing continues to amaze me. You just have to look at the current financial crises. The problems with the banks right now are probably worse than the stock market crash that started the depression, but for all the current problems we haven't been hit nearly as hard as back then. The reason being that currencies are no longer tied to gold.

[MMIKEYJ]

You guys are both wrong about the gold standard. I understand because I used to believe those same things. Thats what they taught me in school over the years. But you need to relearn things. Just like saying the stock market crash started the depression. Thats not true either.

[Demogorgon]

You guys are both wrong about the gold standard. I understand because I used to believe those same things. Thats what they taught me in school over the years. But you need to relearn things. Just like saying the stock market crash started the depression. Thats not true either.
No doubt the existence of Government intervention caused the depression and if only it had kept to itself, everything would have been rosy.

Obviously the depression had more behind it than the stock market crash, these things always do, but that was the spark that set it off, that destabilised the economy.

At any rate though, it wasn't a unique event but rather a continuation of regular depressions seen throughout the nineteenth century. Since the end of the gold standard, nothing like that has been seen, and might I remind you, that despite the less than rosy situation the world economy is in just now (typical of the capitalist business cycle might I add), we have not fallen to those levels.

Wanting to return to the gold standard is simply being reactionary for the sake of being reactionary anyway. It is pure fetishism for the past. Even supposing it did work back then, it could not work now. In fairly primitive economies, gold made for an excellent form of exchange (though, of course, by the nineteenth century it had long outlived its usefulness). It worked, because it was a scarce resource that had little practical use (all you could do with it was work it into ornaments to show off wealth) and did not wildly fluctuate in amount available. In other words it was stable.

It isn't now, it has great practical use of its own these days being heavily used in electronics and dentistry and as such the value of gold grows at a much faster rate than the economy as a whole. It is in no conceivable way a stable basis for a currency and the result of using it would be dramatic deflation. Advocates of so-called "sound money" might reply that it doesn't have to be gold per se and something else can always be used, but advocates forever go on about gold, it must be gold, sounding like the politicians in nineteenth century America not even willing to allow silver to be coupled to the dollar. Like I say it is pure fetishism.

Oh and my usual-and perpetually unanswered-question to goldbugs, would you ban fiduciary money? If yes, how does that work with your idea of economic freedom? If no, how is money, in practice, going to be anymore tied to a commodity in practice than fiat money is?

[Kassad]

I could probably answer your questions, but Im not sure if you really want to hear it, or if you're ready to hear it.

No, you couldn't. Unfortunately, my city is swarming with Ron Paul disciples who, thanks to his ideology, have been turned into xenophobic and homophobic bigots after listening to his incredibly ignorant speeches on social and economic issues. Regardless, they never answer those questions about leaving corporate power unregulated, for it is exactly what they are doing. They are totally contradicting themselves over and over again.

There's no argument for free trade and if you want to attempt to formulate one, you are incredibly sick. Genocides have been unleashed because of free trade. Religious and tribal wars have led to the rise of warlords, along with the devastation of entire races of people through wage slavery in sweat shops, along with the lack of food and shelter in these nations. Free trade puts the money in the pockets of wealthy executives and siphons it directly away from the working class who produce that wealth.

But still, you sound like all other Ron Paul supporters. "I'm not ready for the answer." Lord have mercy, you're right. I've only been studying economics all my life and I've only witnessed the accounts and examples of free trade and deregulation that makes products and goods unsafe for the world, including you and me. There is no argument to justify those you have left to starve to death. There's no rationalization for your support for a xenophobic, homophobic man like Ron Paul who, by the way, doesn't believe in evolution.

So please, grace me with your omniscient and powerful response. I'll be sure to strap myself down so I can handle it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You guys are both wrong about the gold standard. I understand because I used to believe those same things. Thats what they taught me in school over the years. But you need to relearn things. Just like saying the stock market crash started the depression. Thats not true either.

You sure do make a lot of assumptions on our behalf. Once gold standard theocrats can demonstrate why depressions have virtually gone away thanks to Keynes, I'll start to take them more seriously. The truth of the matter is the Austrian school has a huge hole in its argument. Government involvement in the economy increased dramatically during the '30s, and at this time recessions and depressions became less frequent and diminished in effect.

If Ron Paul wants to return to an era where we were in the red 40-60% of the time, he can my guest - somewhere else.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

That was the first time I've actually heard his voice, he sounds like Frasier's dad.

[brigadista]

you are not seeing the wood for the trees - he is GOP!!!

[MMIKEYJ]

Geez.. I feel overwhelmed.. I dont even know where to begin with you guys.

[#FF0000]

Geez.. I feel overwhelmed.. I dont even know where to begin with you guys.

Begin somewhere, boyo. You've just been saying "you guys are totally wrong" without really any argument.

[MMIKEYJ]

Well, lets start with something simple. There seems to be an overwhelming belief on this thread that ever since the removal of the gold standard the world hasnt seen any great depressions and economic upheavals....

What do you guys think is going on over in Zimbabwe right now?

Its a hyperinflationary depression. Thats the only difference. All that has happened is that the effect has been switched from deflationary to inflationary. But people and the economy have become all but ruined.

[Demogorgon]

Well, lets start with something simple. There seems to be an overwhelming belief on this thread that ever since the removal of the gold standard the world hasnt seen any great depressions and economic upheavals....

What do you guys think is going on over in Zimbabwe right now?

Its a hyperinflationary depression. Thats the only difference. All that has happened is that the effect has been switched from deflationary to inflationary. But people and the economy have become all but ruined.
The economy has simply ceased to function, that isn't a depression, simply an entire country coming to a halt. A depression is really a very severe recession, but the economy still functions, just badly. In Zimbabwe things have just... stopped. In any normal depression the capacity to produce was still there, it was the demand that was gone, the inflexible currency caused by the gold standard could not allow for the greater amount of credit needed to tackle the economic crises and the result was you got a "cash famine".

In Zimbabwe the problem in nothing like that, the problem is not the lack of demand, it is the fact that production is not possible anymore. Mugabe's thugs are making it impossible for any work to be done because instead of putting the farms to use they are letting them fall into ruin and destroying the urban economy in an attempt to drive people out of the cities (centres of opposition to Mugabe).

There sure as hell isn't a lack of cash available. Something that was a hallmark of the depressions of the past. Let's look at the currency side of things a bit more though. Ron Paul, who you have made this thread about, said a while ago that pegging a currency to a stable one will have some of the good effects of the gold standard (he doesn't say it is as good, but he says it is better than pure fiat money), in the interview I saw with him saying that, he cited Argentina as a good example of this, which is ridiculous given what subsequently happened there, but let's leave that aside.

Anyway, the notion that pegging a currency to a stable one will lead to some of the supposed good effects of the gold standard is a pertinent one here because Zimbabwe is one of the few countries in Southern Africa that does not peg its currency to the South African Rand. The question then is, would it be in a better state if it had done? Presumably if you hold to the gold standard theory you would have to say it would have, its useless currency backed by a useless Government would instead have been based on a stable currency backed by a reliable Government.

So do you think it would have been better off? For my part, I think it is a ridiculous notion. Zimbabwe is in turmoil due to its productive capacity being crippled. Not anything remotely connected to the normal business cycle. It is more like what happens when a country is devastated by war than any normal economic problem.

[MMIKEYJ]

The economy has simply ceased to function, that isn't a depression, simply an entire country coming to a halt. A depression is really a very severe recession, but the economy still functions, just badly. In Zimbabwe things have just... stopped. In any normal depression the capacity to produce was still there, it was the demand that was gone, the inflexible currency caused by the gold standard could not allow for the greater amount of credit needed to tackle the economic crises and the result was you got a "cash famine".

In Zimbabwe the problem in nothing like that, the problem is not the lack of demand, it is the fact that production is not possible anymore. Mugabe's thugs are making it impossible for any work to be done because instead of putting the farms to use they are letting them fall into ruin and destroying the urban economy in an attempt to drive people out of the cities (centres of opposition to Mugabe).

There sure as hell isn't a lack of cash available. Something that was a hallmark of the depressions of the past. Let's look at the currency side of things a bit more though. Ron Paul, who you have made this thread about, said a while ago that pegging a currency to a stable one will have some of the good effects of the gold standard (he doesn't say it is as good, but he says it is better than pure fiat money), in the interview I saw with him saying that, he cited Argentina as a good example of this, which is ridiculous given what subsequently happened there, but let's leave that aside.

Anyway, the notion that pegging a currency to a stable one will lead to some of the supposed good effects of the gold standard is a pertinent one here because Zimbabwe is one of the few countries in Southern Africa that does not peg its currency to the South African Rand. The question then is, would it be in a better state if it had done? Presumably if you hold to the gold standard theory you would have to say it would have, its useless currency backed by a useless Government would instead have been based on a stable currency backed by a reliable Government.

So do you think it would have been better off? For my part, I think it is a ridiculous notion. Zimbabwe is in turmoil due to its productive capacity being crippled. Not anything remotely connected to the normal business cycle. It is more like what happens when a country is devastated by war than any normal economic problem.

Youre really overcomplicating the issue. Zimbabwe's government printed up too much currency (which is not based on a gold standard) and basically destroyed the peoples' wealth and hence the entire economy.

If Zimbabwe had a law linking their paper money to gold or silver, then this could never have happened. In the entire history of man, a fiat currency always destroys itself. Be it Ancient Rome or America post-Bretton Woods.

And there are alot more examples in the 20th century, all over the world.

[Demogorgon]

Youre really overcomplicating the issue. Zimbabwe's government printed up too much currency (which is not based on a gold standard) and basically destroyed the peoples' wealth and hence the entire economy.

If Zimbabwe had a law linking their paper money to gold or silver, then this could never have happened. In the entire history of man, a fiat currency always destroys itself. Be it Ancient Rome or America post-Bretton Woods.

And there are alot more examples in the 20th century, all over the world.
Nonsense, the over printing of currency was done in order that the army could continue to be paid off as the economy fell apart, it is a symptom, not a cause of the crises. There is actually plenty of sound money in Zimbabwe, British, American and South African money is all circulating widely, the Zimbabwean Dollar is utterly useless so people do not use it when they can help it, and foreign currency, particularly Rand is pretty prevalent. That is normal when a currency collapses incidentally. People just use foreign currency, you see it all over the place. A few years ago when Turkey's currency was on the rocks, people mostly traded in US$ when they could and the economy continued to function, there were big problems certainly, but life carried on. That is not the case in Zimbabwe.

Are you seriously saying things would be fine if the currency was more stable? You might as well say that Iraq would not have problems just now if its currency was tied to Gold.

And saying that fiat money always collapses is ridiculous, when last I checked all the major fiat currencies are alive and well. How many of the old gold backed currencies still exist?

Note, that I am not defending the current financial system, I am a Communist after all. I am just saying it is better than what went before it.

Oh and back to my ever present question, would you ban fiduciary money?

[MMIKEYJ]

Nonsense, the over printing of currency was done in order that the army could continue to be paid off as the economy fell apart, it is a symptom, not a cause of the crises. There is actually plenty of sound money in Zimbabwe, British, American and South African money is all circulating widely, the Zimbabwean Dollar is utterly useless so people do not use it when they can help it, and foreign currency, particularly Rand is pretty prevalent. That is normal when a currency collapses incidentally. People just use foreign currency, you see it all over the place. A few years ago when Turkey's currency was on the rocks, people mostly traded in US$ when they could and the economy continued to function, there were big problems certainly, but life carried on. That is not the case in Zimbabwe.

Are you seriously saying things would be fine if the currency was more stable? You might as well say that Iraq would not have problems just now if its currency was tied to Gold.

And saying that fiat money always collapses is ridiculous, when last I checked all the major fiat currencies are alive and well. How many of the old gold backed currencies still exist?

Note, that I am not defending the current financial system, I am a Communist after all. I am just saying it is better than what went before it.

Oh and back to my ever present question, would you ban fiduciary money?
Yes.. Historically fiat money always collapses upon itself. Because when politicians have to choose between fiscial responsibility and votes, they always choose for votes. America has only fully been off the gold standard since 1971. But youre watching it happen now.

The major currencies are alive, but they are not well. The price of gold tells us that. What you are witnessing now is the collapse of the dollar bubble.. It will be the biggest bubble burst we've ever known. And the only real protection you have against inflation is gold and silver, or some other sort of real commodity.

[Kassad]

Why don't you start by answering the questions I've raised? You claim to have answers to them, so let's see them. So far, all I've seen is arrogance and a smug attitude from someone who advocates massive genocide through the destruction of trade barriers. I'm very excited to see how you justify mass starvation.

Oh, and by the way, there isn't enough gold in the world to match the current levels of international currency. Also, gold is a totally fixed resource. We don't find loads and loads of it, so what happens if the amount of goods rapidly expands, as it has been doing for decades with massive technological development? Uh oh, it looks like we're out of gold, so I guess we'll just have to halt all technological and social development so we can have stability. Why don't you get off Lew Rockwell's blog and look at rational economics? You will quickly realize that gold is an affront to economic development. And what about third world countries without any gold production? They rely on the industrialized nations of the world to supply it. That is imperialism at its finest, as the United States would gain a total monopoly on the currency.

In fact, let's look at who is to blame for the inflation. The capitalist elite is to blame because they are the ones producing the money. Do you know what it is called when we allow the private sector, ie. the Federal Reserve, to produce money unchecked for private interests in the interest of profit? That's called deregulation, which is what Ron Paul and the libertarian right advocate. You have contradicted yourself again. Sorry. Thanks for playing.

[Demogorgon]

With all due respect, this is like talking to a Jehovah's Witness. You seem to have some sort of zeal to your convictions not backed by any economic fact. The history of currencies backed by precious metal shows that they could not cope with modern (nineteenth century onwards) capitalism whereas fiat money can. If history had played out another way I might agree with you, but I know my economic history and I am not seeing it. As I say, you seem to be motivated by an almost religious fervor here, particularly as you insist it must be gold (no longer useful as a representation of wealth because it is heavily used in electronics and thus you would be pegging the entire economy to that sector in effect) that is used as the basis of money.

Of course people are buying up gold just now. There is going to be a period of fairly high inflation combined with fairly low interest rates meaning that savings of various types will lose value. Gold on the other hand will go up in price because of its aformentioned use in electronics. When the crises has passed, people will sell off the gold again though.

When the current financial system does finally come apart (which I think it will, though for different reasons than you), neither Jesus nor Gold will "save us". We will have to remake our economy in a more forward looking and progressive manner, not go back to failed nineteenth century models.

Oh and, would you ban fiduciary money?

[MMIKEYJ]

With all due respect, this is like talking to a Jehovah's Witness. You seem to have some sort of zeal to your convictions not backed by any economic fact. The history of currencies backed by precious metal shows that they could not cope with modern (nineteenth century onwards) capitalism whereas fiat money can. If history had played out another way I might agree with you, but I know my economic history and I am not seeing it. As I say, you seem to be motivated by an almost religious fervor here, particularly as you insist it must be gold (no longer useful as a representation of wealth because it is heavily used in electronics and thus you would be pegging the entire economy to that sector in effect) that is used as the basis of money.

Of course people are buying up gold just now. There is going to be a period of fairly high inflation combined with fairly low interest rates meaning that savings of various types will lose value. Gold on the other hand will go up in price because of its aformentioned use in electronics. When the crises has passed, people will sell off the gold again though.

When the current financial system does finally come apart (which I think it will, though for different reasons than you), neither Jesus nor Gold will "save us". We will have to remake our economy in a more forward looking and progressive manner, not go back to failed nineteenth century models.

Oh and, would you ban fiduciary money?
No, I wouldnt ban fiduciary money.. That would be the best thing IMO. You dont want people walking around changing actual gold coins because the coins will wear off and the country will lose wealth that way. Im fine with gold certificates, silver certificates, etc. Silver for dollar coins and small change, fine with me.

There might even be a certain part of unbacked money allowed by the market in the private sector that would work. But right now for the banks to create all this money at our expense is very harmful. People dont understand how it works and become willing dupes contributing to their own demise.

G. Edward Griffin's "Creature from Jekyll Island" is a good place for people to start.. I can link to an MP3 of the audio book is anybody wants it.. it can be burned onto a CD and listened to in the car.. Good use of commuting time IMO.

[MMIKEYJ]

Why don't you start by answering the questions I've raised? You claim to have answers to them, so let's see them. So far, all I've seen is arrogance and a smug attitude from someone who advocates massive genocide through the destruction of trade barriers. I'm very excited to see how you justify mass starvation.

Oh, and by the way, there isn't enough gold in the world to match the current levels of international currency. Also, gold is a totally fixed resource. We don't find loads and loads of it, so what happens if the amount of goods rapidly expands, as it has been doing for decades with massive technological development? Uh oh, it looks like we're out of gold, so I guess we'll just have to halt all technological and social development so we can have stability. Why don't you get off Lew Rockwell's blog and look at rational economics? You will quickly realize that gold is an affront to economic development. And what about third world countries without any gold production? They rely on the industrialized nations of the world to supply it. That is imperialism at its finest, as the United States would gain a total monopoly on the currency.

In fact, let's look at who is to blame for the inflation. The capitalist elite is to blame because they are the ones producing the money. Do you know what it is called when we allow the private sector, ie. the Federal Reserve, to produce money unchecked for private interests in the interest of profit? That's called deregulation, which is what Ron Paul and the libertarian right advocate. You have contradicted yourself again. Sorry. Thanks for playing.
3 errors in your assumption.

1. I am not for genocide.

2. There is always enough gold in the world to back currency.

3. And this is most important. Ron Paul advocates strict regulation of the federal reserve and fractional reserve lending, because those are indeed the culprits of our problem.

[Kassad]

1. Okay, and I'm a Nazi who isn't fond of the Holocaust. I can play games too.
2. No, there isn't. For a worldwide market that contains trillions of dollars, whether they be hard, soft or virtual; there isn't enough gold in the world to sustain every country in the world and even if there was, it would be manipulated by corporations.
3. Ron Paul advocates deregulation of the private sector almost unconditionally, yet he wants to regulate the banking system that his deregulatory schemes helped create. Witty.

[Demogorgon]

No, I wouldnt ban fiduciary money.. That would be the best thing IMO. You dont want people walking around changing actual gold coins because the coins will wear off and the country will lose wealth that way. Im fine with gold certificates, silver certificates, etc. Silver for dollar coins and small change, fine with me.

There might even be a certain part of unbacked money allowed by the market in the private sector that would work. But right now for the banks to create all this money at our expense is very harmful. People dont understand how it works and become willing dupes contributing to their own demise.

G. Edward Griffin's "Creature from Jekyll Island" is a good place for people to start.. I can link to an MP3 of the audio book is anybody wants it.. it can be burned onto a CD and listened to in the car.. Good use of commuting time IMO.
Fiduciary money isn't simply gold certificates, it is the system where lenders can give out much more in the way of gold certificates than they have in gold, the original fractional reserve banking. The fractional reserve system is not something that came about with fiat money, indeed one of the reasons for the change was the fractional reserve system under the Gold Standard was so unstable.

I should add that I am very against the fractional reserve system, I am against banks as they exist now in general as it happens. And believe me, I could go on for weeks about banks and the problems they cause and particularly my feelings for the fractional reserve system, but talking about it here is a red herring, because the real world gold standard was where the fractional reserve system was born. I know Murray Rothbard, who you are indirectly drawing on was against that system, but how on earth he proposed to enforce it I do not know. Under Free Banking, banks are free to issue their own gold certificates and they will always issue more than they actually have gold and of course when the collapse comes, there is no central bank to bail them out and all the savers loose their money. Simply saying that fiduciary money will be banned or restricted (an infringement on the free market ironically) isn't really going to cut it either, because that will lead to its own problems with the constant deflation.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Youre really overcomplicating the issue. Zimbabwe's government printed up too much currency (which is not based on a gold standard) and basically destroyed the peoples' wealth and hence the entire economy.

If Zimbabwe had a law linking their paper money to gold or silver, then this could never have happened. In the entire history of man, a fiat currency always destroys itself. Be it Ancient Rome or America post-Bretton Woods.

And there are alot more examples in the 20th century, all over the world.

Printing money doesn't wreck an economy unless the money supply isn't used on stimulating domestic job markets. The Weimar Republic created hyperinflation printing millions of new bills ... nearly all of which went to repaying debt. Zimbabwe used up its money supply on war material and reparations for two different wars. The whole point in deficit spending is to focus the new money supply on production and, in the end, build up more wealth than what inflation will take away. It's not perfect but it has a long track record.

Nazi Germany, on other other hand, while stuck in one of the worst situations during the Great Depression, came out of that era's woes (after Sweden) using deficit spending on social programs. Later on Nazi Germany was creating its own problems by deficit spending on war material, which goes back to my statement that deficit spending is not meant for non-industrial/non-domestic spending.

[MMIKEYJ]

1. Okay, and I'm a Nazi who isn't fond of the Holocaust. I can play games too.

Hey you might have been a nazi for all I know. Ill agree with Patton, lip service to the nazi party would be like lip service to the republicans or democrats.

2. No, there isn't. For a worldwide market that contains trillions of dollars, whether they be hard, soft or virtual; there isn't enough gold in the world to sustain every country in the world and even if there was, it would be manipulated by corporations.

Yes, there is always enough precious metal to back currency.

3. Ron Paul advocates deregulation of the private sector almost unconditionally, yet he wants to regulate the banking system that his deregulatory schemes helped create. Witty.

Because what we have in the Federal Reserve and the banking system is fascism in money. Thats what it is. It is a collusion between big business and big government.. It is evil corporatism. But that isnt the same as capitalism.



I said When I first came here, that there are misconceptions on each other because of things we dont understand. And Im sticking by that. Just like I learned that you guys being communists doesnt make you to be totalitarians. Capitalists are simply people who save their money and invest their capital in something, and I dont equate them with the evil corporatism that we see in our current system which has run amuck because the government has gotten in to bed with so many big businesses.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Fiduciary money isn't simply gold certificates, it is the system where lenders can give out much more in the way of gold certificates than they have in gold, the original fractional reserve banking. The fractional reserve system is not something that came about with fiat money, indeed one of the reasons for the change was the fractional reserve system under the Gold Standard was so unstable.

I should add that I am very against the fractional reserve system, I am against banks as they exist now in general as it happens. And believe me, I could go on for weeks about banks and the problems they cause and particularly my feelings for the fractional reserve system, but talking about it here is a red herring, because the real world gold standard was where the fractional reserve system was born. I know Murray Rothbard, who you are indirectly drawing on was against that system, but how on earth he proposed to enforce it I do not know. Under Free Banking, banks are free to issue their own gold certificates and they will always issue more than they actually have gold and of course when the collapse comes, there is no central bank to bail them out and all the savers loose their money. Simply saying that fiduciary money will be banned or restricted (an infringement on the free market ironically) isn't really going to cut it either, because that will lead to its own problems with the constant deflation.

I think Mikey is closer to the Mises standpoint than Rothbard's. He's talking about legislating against fractional reserve banking.

[MMIKEYJ]

Printing money doesn't wreck an economy unless the money supply isn't used on stimulating domestic job markets. The Weimar Republic created hyperinflation printing millions of new bills ... nearly all of which went to repaying debt. Zimbabwe used up its money supply on war material and reparations for two different wars. The whole point in deficit spending is to focus the new money supply on production and, in the end, build up more wealth than what inflation will take away. It's not perfect but it has a long track record.

Nazi Germany, on other other hand, while stuck in one of the worst situations during the Great Depression, came out of that era's woes (after Sweden) using deficit spending on social programs. Later on Nazi Germany was creating its own problems by deficit spending on war material, which goes back to my statement that deficit spending is not meant for non-industrial/non-domestic spending.

Printing money with wild abandon Always destroys the middle class. Inflation is a tax, the burden of which falls on the poor and middle class. But it doesnt affect the rich anywhere near as much.

Whether its 1923 Germany or Zimbabwe today.. the middle class gets wiped out.

[Demogorgon]

I said When I first came here, that there are misconceptions on each other because of things we dont understand. And Im sticking by that. Just like I learned that you guys being communists doesnt make you to be totalitarians. Capitalists are simply people who save their money and invest their capital in something, and I dont equate them with the evil corporatism that we see in our current system which has run amuck because the government has gotten in to bed with so many big businesses.
In the spirit of trying to avoid misunderstanding, what exactly is your solution to this? You agree clearly that corporate dominated Government is hardly ideal, so what exactly is the solution? Any capitalist system will create powerful corporations and powerful corporations will naturally dominate the Government and in turn a corporate dominated Government will create policies beneficial to big corporations. So at what point do we break this cycle without getting rid of, or mitigating, capitalism?

[MMIKEYJ]

Fiduciary money isn't simply gold certificates, it is the system where lenders can give out much more in the way of gold certificates than they have in gold, the original fractional reserve banking. The fractional reserve system is not something that came about with fiat money, indeed one of the reasons for the change was the fractional reserve system under the Gold Standard was so unstable.

I should add that I am very against the fractional reserve system, I am against banks as they exist now in general as it happens. And believe me, I could go on for weeks about banks and the problems they cause and particularly my feelings for the fractional reserve system, but talking about it here is a red herring, because the real world gold standard was where the fractional reserve system was born. I know Murray Rothbard, who you are indirectly drawing on was against that system, but how on earth he proposed to enforce it I do not know. Under Free Banking, banks are free to issue their own gold certificates and they will always issue more than they actually have gold and of course when the collapse comes, there is no central bank to bail them out and all the savers loose their money. Simply saying that fiduciary money will be banned or restricted (an infringement on the free market ironically) isn't really going to cut it either, because that will lead to its own problems with the constant deflation.
Fractional reserve lending is unstable to begin with, and im against it to. What Im saying is that the market may tolerate 10%, or a 20% fiduciary money created from banks.. RIght now we allow 900%+ to be created from the banks and people have no clue.. and its not just bank notes.. its LEGAL TENDER bank notes. Thats the real problem.

The government should not be backing any of this bank money with their
"good housekeeping seal" because it makes the people think they are safe from the wolves.

[Demogorgon]

Printing money with wild abandon Always destroys the middle class. Inflation is a tax, the burden of which falls on the poor and middle class. But it doesnt affect the rich anywhere near as much.

Whether its 1923 Germany or Zimbabwe today.. the middle class gets wiped out.
Inflation actually does the opposite a lot of the time as it can shift wealth from the creditor to the debtor. Hyper-inflation is different because the rich can simply shift their savings out of the country-if they were ever in the country to start with-while the poor cannot. But regular inflation of reasonable amounts is certainly not automatically a bad thing, it mitigates debt and encourages consumer spending.

[MMIKEYJ]

Kassad, im going backwards with your posts, so Ill take this one first.


No, you couldn't. Unfortunately, my city is swarming with Ron Paul disciples who, thanks to his ideology, have been turned into xenophobic and homophobic bigots after listening to his incredibly ignorant speeches on social and economic issues.
Please point out to me where Ron Paul is either a xenophobe or a homophobe. One of the tennets of libertarians is that people are not put into little groups. You cannot be a bigot and be a true libertarian, quite simply. I know the media tried to portray him as one, but its not any different than what they try to do to lots of people for a story.

Regardless, they never answer those questions about leaving corporate power unregulated, for it is exactly what they are doing. They are totally contradicting themselves over and over again.

Corporate power needs to be regulated when it becomes enmeshed and backed by the coercive arm of government, but its regulation on government we need to keep this from happening. Otherwise let mens' individual greed be the best regulator, the market.

There's no argument for free trade and if you want to attempt to formulate one, you are incredibly sick. Genocides have been unleashed because of free trade. Religious and tribal wars have led to the rise of warlords, along with the devastation of entire races of people through wage slavery in sweat shops, along with the lack of food and shelter in these nations. Free trade puts the money in the pockets of wealthy executives and siphons it directly away from the working class who produce that wealth.
We havent seen real capitalism in this country since 1913. Nor do we have free trade right now.. I know we have fair trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.. But they are not free trade, they are carefully managed trade for special interest. Again, big business colluding with big government for the benefit of both and wiping out the rights of the people at the same time.

But still, you sound like all other Ron Paul supporters. "I'm not ready for the answer." Lord have mercy, you're right. I've only been studying economics all my life and I've only witnessed the accounts and examples of free trade and deregulation that makes products and goods unsafe for the world, including you and me. There is no argument to justify those you have left to starve to death. There's no rationalization for your support for a xenophobic, homophobic man like Ron Paul who, by the way, doesn't believe in evolution.
Please show me where Ron Paul doesnt believe in evolution.

So please, grace me with your omniscient and powerful response. I'll be sure to strap myself down so I can handle it.

[Demogorgon]

Fractional reserve lending is unstable to begin with, and im against it to. What Im saying is that the market may tolerate 10%, or a 20% fiduciary money created from banks.. RIght now we allow 900%+ to be created from the banks and people have no clue.. and its not just bank notes.. its LEGAL TENDER bank notes. Thats the real problem.

The government should not be backing any of this bank money with their
"good housekeeping seal" because it makes the people think they are safe from the wolves.
You will find no disagreement from me that the current system is outrageous, but your proposed solution is no better. Back in the days of the Gold Standard, banks behaved just as they did now. You could always put in place huge regulation to stop them doing that, though that brings us back to why we need the gold standard at all, you can regulate banks under a fiat system too (or even better get rid of both systems...)

Incidentally, I notice that your views are very old fashioned in their notion of money. You talk about bank notes and whatnot, but they make up very little in terms of actual transactions these days, most currency is electronic. When a bank gives you a loan, it won't present you with cash, it will give you the capacity to withdraw a certain amount of money from an account. You can take that in cash if you want, but generally you wont. It will mostly be done electronically. How you are going to cope with that under your proposed system I do not know.

[Demogorgon]

I have to add, given that you say Libertarians cannot be bigots, ever heard of Hans Herman-Hoppe?

Check out the Von Mises institute in general actually, you would have to go to stormfront to find a bigger collection of bigots.

[MMIKEYJ]

You will find no disagreement from me that the current system is outrageous, but your proposed solution is no better. Back in the days of the Gold Standard, banks behaved just as they did now. You could always put in place huge regulation to stop them doing that, though that brings us back to why we need the gold standard at all, you can regulate banks under a fiat system too (or even better get rid of both systems...)

Incidentally, I notice that your views are very old fashioned in their notion of money. You talk about bank notes and whatnot, but they make up very little in terms of actual transactions these days, most currency is electronic. When a bank gives you a loan, it won't present you with cash, it will give you the capacity to withdraw a certain amount of money from an account. You can take that in cash if you want, but generally you wont. It will mostly be done electronically. How you are going to cope with that under your proposed system I do not know.

They can still have debit cards, and electronic banking with a gold or silver money system.. Yeah, I guess I do sound a little old fashioned with some of the terms. heh Im a nerd. heh

[MMIKEYJ]

I have to add, given that you say Libertarians cannot be bigots, ever heard of Hans Herman-Hoppe?

Check out the Von Mises institute in general actually, you would have to go to stormfront to find a bigger collection of bigots.


I only know of him thru the Mises Institute film, "Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve" and he talks for a few minutes in there..

He sounds like a nazi..but ive known jewish people who spoke like that too.

I dont go on mises too much so im not well acquainted with everybody, but If he is a racist, perhaps he just advocates sound money, but i wouldnt call him libertarian.

because libertarians believe that people get rights because they are individuals, not because they belong to a group like minorities, women, blacks, etc... If someone has a collectivist mentality, it amazes me how they can agree with Dr. Paul on some things, but not on things like racism.

[MMIKEYJ]

I think Mikey is closer to the Mises standpoint than Rothbard's. He's talking about legislating against fractional reserve banking.
well thats a start, but id be happiest with stripping the fed of all its power and leaving it stand as simply a clearing house to clear peoples' checks

[Demogorgon]

I only know of him thru the Mises Institute film, "Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve" and he talks for a few minutes in there..

He sounds like a nazi..but ive known jewish people who spoke like that too.

I dont go on mises too much so im not well acquainted with everybody, but If he is a racist, perhaps he just advocates sound money, but i wouldnt call him libertarian.

because libertarians believe that people get rights because they are individuals, not because they belong to a group like minorities, women, blacks, etc... If someone has a collectivist mentality, it amazes me how they can agree with Dr. Paul on some things, but not on things like racism.
That is the theory and I am sure that you personally are no bigot, but almost every leading light of the Libertarian movement I have ever looked into (and I have looked into most) has held socially reactionary views, from strongly backing apartheid in South Africa to neo-Confederism to homophobia to outright support for dictatorship, especially in South America and so on, the movement often looks more socially Conservative than mainstream Conservatism. I have read articles by Libertarians claiming that Vichy France was a proper return to good patriotic values after effette socialism in the thirties, articles calling for genocide against the Arab world, articles calling for the most cruel punishments imaginable against people convicted of even relatively minor offences and so on.

I don't know whether naturally authoritarian people are attracted to the hierarchical economics Libertarians advocate in practice or whether people with the best of intentions genuinely believing that these economic policies mean freedom end up getting poisoned into ultra-authoritarian social policies by those they associate with, I suspect it is a bit of both, but long experience with so called Libertarians has taught me that their view of freedom is very warped in social terms as well as economic terms.

[Qayin]

I agree that the fed needs to be abolished
I hate the current debt system,and gold standard system sounds stupid

Im sure theres not enough gold in the world for the current global economy.

[MMIKEYJ]

I agree that the fed needs to be abolished
I hate the current debt system,and gold standard system sounds stupid

Im sure theres not enough gold in the world for the current global economy.
Theres always enough gold and silver its just the ratio that has to be set. Right now gold is $1,000/Oz. So you could have a standard set at that.. One thousand dollars to an ounce of gold.. but you couldnt go right back to the pre-1971 level of $35/Oz because that would bring on massive quick deflation.. Thats what Great Britain tried doing after WWI, and thats why it failed.

Theres an old saying:

Gold is the currency of Kings, Silver is the currency of Free Men, and Debt is the currency of Slaves.


I happily opt for silver.

[MMIKEYJ]

In the spirit of trying to avoid misunderstanding, what exactly is your solution to this? You agree clearly that corporate dominated Government is hardly ideal, so what exactly is the solution? Any capitalist system will create powerful corporations and powerful corporations will naturally dominate the Government and in turn a corporate dominated Government will create policies beneficial to big corporations. So at what point do we break this cycle without getting rid of, or mitigating, capitalism?
Im sorry, I didnt see this post of yours until now.

The solution is Limited Constitutional government. Almost everything our government does wrong today is illegal under the Constitution. But the people through decades of sloth and lethargy and watching too much TV have become brain dead. We ourselves have allowed the government to grow unchecked.

The Constitution acts as a chain which binds the government. Because when the govt grows it only does so at the expense of liberty of the people.

The engine of growth for big govt is the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax. The income tax finances the federal reserve and the fed is what allows the federal govt to have all the money it wants and to grow grow and grow.

We need to kill off the federal reserve, and the income tax that feeds it. Govt will shrink tremendously after that. And the liberty of people will grow as a result.

[MMIKEYJ]

You will find no disagreement from me that the current system is outrageous, but your proposed solution is no better. Back in the days of the Gold Standard, banks behaved just as they did now. You could always put in place huge regulation to stop them doing that, though that brings us back to why we need the gold standard at all, you can regulate banks under a fiat system too (or even better get rid of both systems...)

Incidentally, I notice that your views are very old fashioned in their notion of money. You talk about bank notes and whatnot, but they make up very little in terms of actual transactions these days, most currency is electronic. When a bank gives you a loan, it won't present you with cash, it will give you the capacity to withdraw a certain amount of money from an account. You can take that in cash if you want, but generally you wont. It will mostly be done electronically. How you are going to cope with that under your proposed system I do not know.

Well, we could just outlaw fractional reserve lending and make banks provide 100% reserve banking. Id be okay with that.

That way a house would only cost people $60,000, as an example.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

An interesting quote on this topic:

You have a choice between the natural stability of gold and the honesty and intelligence of the members of government. And with all due respect for those gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the capitalist system lasts, vote for gold. - George Bernard Shaw

The idea of a gold standard is interesting to say the least. I don't think it serves any purpose to say that all libertarians have been bigots unless supporting the gold standard must inevitably means hating ethnic minorities and the like. I have to say, arguments for the gold standard seem more convincing to me than they should, but then that's probably because I have no clue about economics and the only ones who even attempt to educate people on the subject are the Austrian school. Why is that?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

An interesting quote on this topic:

You have a choice between the natural stability of gold and the honesty and intelligence of the members of government. And with all due respect for those gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the capitalist system lasts, vote for gold. - George Bernard Shaw

The idea of a gold standard is interesting to say the least. I don't think it serves any purpose to say that all libertarians have been bigots unless supporting the gold standard must inevitably means hating ethnic minorities and the like. I have to say, arguments for the gold standard seem more convincing to me than they should, but then that's probably because I have no clue about economics and the only ones who even attempt to educate people on the subject are the Austrian school. Why is that?

Because you have selective reading? Are you trying to imply other schools are afraid to touch the subject? There are two well-established papers written by Milton Friedman which address some of the religious absurdities found in the Austrian School's love affair with gold. Reversely, Neo-Keynesians have written extensively in support of fiat.

If we were to return to commodity-based currency, something more flexible like energy would make more sense. Gold is stable in the long-term, but it has a track record of fluctuating every year. Austrian school advocates are overrepresented on the internet, as we saw with the Ron Paul campaign.

And does it need to be said that the de facto use of gold was what originally created fractional reserve banking?

[Demogorgon]

Im sorry, I didnt see this post of yours until now.

The solution is Limited Constitutional government. Almost everything our government does wrong today is illegal under the Constitution. But the people through decades of sloth and lethargy and watching too much TV have become brain dead. We ourselves have allowed the government to grow unchecked.

The Constitution acts as a chain which binds the government. Because when the govt grows it only does so at the expense of liberty of the people.

The engine of growth for big govt is the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax. The income tax finances the federal reserve and the fed is what allows the federal govt to have all the money it wants and to grow grow and grow.

We need to kill off the federal reserve, and the income tax that feeds it. Govt will shrink tremendously after that. And the liberty of people will grow as a result.This isn't really good enough. For one, it only applies to America anyway, which is useless to everybody else, and also for that matter, to America, which is part of a global economy. I am not American, but I live in a society where exactly the same issues we have discussed are present. How is a "return" to an idealised version of the US constitution going to help me?

Besides, even ignoring that, following your interpretation of the constitution wouldn't get anyone anywhere, for one it is not an infallible document, it is the oldest written constitution in continuous use anywhere in the world and as such is quite out of date, it holds for two reasons, the first being that it can be amended and the second that it allows for a lot of interpretation.

Next, the constitution doesn't limit Government anyway, it limits federal Government. The only restriction it imposes on state Governments is that they must be Republics and must not pass Ex Post Facto laws or Bills of Attainder. Subsequent amendments place considerably more restrictions of course, but you may very well be against that, as we shall see now.

There is a notion, almost exclusively held by American Libertarians, that it is the federal Government, as opposed to Government in general, that is the problem. Often they seem to desire to explicitly increase the power of State Governments against the individual. Ron Paul for instance claims that Lawrence vs Texas was unacceptable as it infringed on state sovereignty, he even introduced legislation to prevent it from happening again. I mean, how on earth do you get from Libertarian values to that. How can Libertarians say that the Government should be allowed to ban sexual acts between consenting adults? If you ask Libertarians they will say of course that they were against the law, but the federal courts should not have struck it down. But hang on, if the principal is individual liberty, surely the protection of individual rights against the power of the (state) Government should be they key role of the courts.

Anyway your notion that at some point there was "constitutional government" isn't historical anyway. The Government more or less did as it pleased in the nineteenth century and the Supreme Court did nothing to stop it. In 1803, in Marbury v Madison, it struck down a law as unconstitutional and then did not do so again until Dred Scott v Sandford in 1857 (which should tell you all you need to know about the notion of the constitution protecting rights back then). It was not until the twentieth century, when you hold constitutional government ended, that the judiciary actually started to enforce constitutional limitations against the federal Government.

And let's not even go into the extraordinary level of power the State Governments executed.

At any rate your answer is something of a cop out anyway. I asked you how you would stop business dominance of Government while removing constraints on business. In a climate where corporations can push around the Government, "returning" to limited Government is a no go, they won't let you do it, and even if you do pull it off, they will soon undo the changes. So how do you stop corporate control over Government?

[Demogorgon]

Well, we could just outlaw fractional reserve lending and make banks provide 100% reserve banking. Id be okay with that.

That way a house would only cost people $60,000, as an example.
No it wouldn't, people would mostly just be forced to rent. Quite a few countries in Europe limit banks behaviour when it comes to mortgages and home ownership is much lower as a result. That isn't necessarily a bad thing of course. Affordable rent is better than outrageous mortgage payments after all, but the point is it doesn't alter the price of houses by very much.

There is the possibility of a better system that would bring down the price of houses, but the gold (or silver) standard ain't it.

[Demogorgon]

Something I should add, is that tying the supply of money completely to gold will drive up the price of credit. With much less credit being available, interest rates would rocket, making it impossible for most people to buy on credit.

[Kassad]

You're totally missing and ignoring the core of my argument. What I'm stating is that Congressman Ron Paul and his free market, laissez-faire libertarian capitalists advocate deregulation of the market and the private sector. They believe, falsely, that the deregulation will give room to incentive and the competition will promote the use of higher quality and more efficient products. We, as rational thinkers, realize that the profit motive in this scenario actually leads to less-stable and efficient products, as competing corporations will make the cheapest products they are required to so they can make a profit. Also, history shows us that corporate powerhouses will quickly unite and claim a monopoly on the market for a product if allowed.

Regardless, deregulation and market capitalism's ideological application allows the banking groups these same deregulatory schemes, which allows them to manipulate the market. The deregulation that the conservatives advocate is exactly what caused the banking crisis, as it allows them to manipulate resources and profit for their personal gains with no oversight. The government has literally no ability to regulate these banking fiends because of deregulation and the corporate takeover of the means of production, along with the government. Deregulation caused the problem and that is exactly what Ron Paul advocates.

On to Ron Paul's bigotry, he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, due to the fact that he refuses to force states to acknowledge the legitimacy of homosexual couples. Now, this can be quickly countered by his lack of support for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man or a woman. Regardless, let's look at this in a very familiar context. Slavery, a barbaric form of discrimination and oppression of one's rights, was only outlawed and legislated by the federal government's intervention and the eventual passing of the 13th Amendment. By Ron Paul's constitutionalist ideology, slavery should have been left to the states and no federal legislation to end discrimination should be passed. He's praising an inherently flawed document that does a pretty good job at allowing anything to be made legal by a majority vote in a state. That includes murder, child abduction and other assorted atrocities. Have a nice day.

On to Dr. Paul's xenophobia, I need no real citation or justification. He supported a fence across the border of the United States and Mexico. Instead of advocating support for compassion and the rejection of racism, we make the United States a fenced-in colony. We have the resources and ability to support open borders and unity with our fellow humans in Mexico. Ron Paul also advocates an end to all welfare and social security, as they are magnets for illegal immigrants, despite the millions who have been thrown into shambles by the deregulation Ron Paul advocates and their need of welfare due to conservative obliteration of the economy. He also advocates the end of "birth-right citizenship", which tells newborn children that because their parents were in the United States for whatever reason, they must now go back to the country of origin for their parents, instead of maybe, I don't know, recognizing the social ails and problems in society? This will doom thousands, if not millions, to an impoverished life without any assistance from a nation that has the ability to maintain stability for all races, colors and creeds.

I mean, seriously. You have no facts to back up any of your ridiculous assertions. Here's Ron Paul on evolution:

'Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think] the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.'
Source: Lew Rockwell's Blog; http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018118.html

I think you're about done. Ron Paul is an enemy of the working class. He supports the same deregulation and free trade that has been advocated by the horrendous Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr. and George W. Bush administrations. These administrations have overflowed with scandals, back-door military deals and a disgusting disregard for human rights. These administrations have funded racist policies that are quick to hang the cross on their walls, but even quicker to crucify those who disagree. Deregulation is great for the wealthy. It makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, especially as it forces minorities who are already underprivileged to turn to the drug trade and organized crime to support their families.

Iran-Contra? Watergate? The invasion of Iraq? The occupation of Afghanistan? Support for Zionist murderers? The destruction of Guatemala? Panama? Ecuador? Cuba? The assassination of Jaime Roldos and Omar Torrijos? The racist War on Drugs? The destruction of welfare programs? Imperialism in Africa? Corporate control of nations across the world? Advocacy for Christian bigotry? The destruction of our environment? Global warming? Rampant inflation? Uncontrollable debt? Homophobia? Xenophobia? Concentration of wealth? Massive unemployment? Massive foreclosures? Recessions?

These are all the symptoms of the capitalist disease; the same disease that Dr. Ron Paul has injected into the ignorant and malleable minds of his supporters. Go find me a poor, unemployed, minority Ron Paul supporter and then we'll have a jolly nice talk.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Because you have selective reading? Are you trying to imply other schools are afraid to touch the subject? There are two well-established papers written by Milton Friedman which address some of the religious absurdities found in the Austrian School's love affair with gold. Reversely, Neo-Keynesians have written extensively in support of fiat.

I'm sure all sorts of people have written all sorts of things - in their own little worlds. I don't selectively read, I read whatever comes to me, but my point is that all that is coming is Austrian school stuff. I went searching for some kind of online beginner's guide to economics the other day so that a layman like me might be able to follow the conversation and surprise surprise, the first thing I see is a crash course in economics from an Austrian school guy.

This is not an endorsement of the Austrian school nor an indictment of any other theory. All I am saying is that online, ie on websites, discussion forums and the blogosphere, Austrian school arguments are both more common and more coherent than their Marxist, Keynesian and Chicago school counterparts. Maybe that's not what it's like in academic circles and I certainly know that's not what it's like in real life.


If we were to return to commodity-based currency, something more flexible like energy would make more sense. Gold is stable in the long-term, but it has a track record of fluctuating every year. Austrian school advocates are overrepresented on the internet, as we saw with the Ron Paul campaign.
That's a total copout. Every unpopular fringe group is overrepresented on the internet, leftists included. But in the areas I have mentioned there has been no real increase in leftist presence, and where there has been it has been more noise than signal. Through personal experience I would always trust the left more than I would trust any deregulation fetishists. But what I am saying is that, objectively, the left's same-old rants about the evil capitalist pig-dogs are looking a tad jaded and sloppy next to a group such as the Austrian school who try to explain in a clear and easily understandable manner why their economic theory beats the current one.

[Demogorgon]

This is not an endorsement of the Austrian school nor an indictment of any other theory. All I am saying is that online, ie on websites, discussion forums and the blogosphere, Austrian school arguments are both more common and more coherent than their Marxist, Keynesian and Chicago school counterparts. Maybe that's not what it's like in academic circles and I certainly know that's not what it's like in real life.

There are less than two hundred Austrian School academics anywhere in the world. Their theory is almost universally mocked by mainstream economists because of its hopelessly unscientific nature. They can't get employment in academia and they can't get employment with companies because they are useless at interpreting data most of the time, so they hawk their economic snake oil to laymen who they hope won't spot the flaws.

Marxian economics obviously isn't mainstream either, but because it follows normal scientific procedure and accepts the basic economic facts, Marxians can get employment in academia (most Universities have at least one in their economics departments) and can get their papers published in reputable journals.

[Kassad]

I'm sure all sorts of people have written all sorts of things - in their own little worlds. I don't selectively read, I read whatever comes to me, but my point is that all that is coming is Austrian school stuff. I went searching for some kind of online beginner's guide to economics the other day so that a layman like me might be able to follow the conversation and surprise surprise, the first thing I see is a crash course in economics from an Austrian school guy.

This is not an endorsement of the Austrian school nor an indictment of any other theory. All I am saying is that online, ie on websites, discussion forums and the blogosphere, Austrian school arguments are both more common and more coherent than their Marxist, Keynesian and Chicago school counterparts. Maybe that's not what it's like in academic circles and I certainly know that's not what it's like in real life.

May I be the first to say "congratulations." The Austrian Economic crackpots have hijacked the internet. In fact, I've seen a lot of potential revolutionaries fall into the trap of laissez-faire economics, which in all truth, is just more of the political and corporate manipulation that we've witnessed since the inception of the American state. Regardless, how are the Austrian economists doing in organizing community organization? Or, and this is just a wild shot, any type of political activism whatsoever? For that matter, before Congressman Ron Paul had political half-wits having wet dreams, who had really ever heard of the Austrian School of Economics? No one, because they are totally irrelevant.

Not only do they advocate genocide in the form of free trade and deregulation, but they also are quick to disregard their economic ideology's lack of protection for the environment. Under a system of deregulation, who's to stop a corporation from bulldozing an entire forest or a habitat for wild species? No one, but that's the genius of it, don't you see? These Austrian types are wealthy. They are white and they are able to manipulate society to their will. I have yet to meet an impoverished minority citizen who supports Austrian economics. Of course these people support low taxes and market reforms, as it allows them to make a profit at the expense of others. I guess it sounds great from their side, but the thousands who have died due to starvation thanks to deregulation would beg to differ. Would you be comfortable confronting someone who has been oppressed and taken advantage of by a deregulated corporation in Africa? Feel free to give them a visit and let them know that you're incredibly sorry they will not be eating tonight, but that's business.

It's great that you're convinced that advocates of racism, homophobia and exploitation are more reasonable than us, but there isn't much to say here. If the American population feel content in leaving millions to starve and millions to die thanks to corporate deregulation that caused this current problem, then I am incredibly distraught. However, tell me this. If the American government didn't fear a socialist uprising, why would they spend so much time slandering the workers movements and the revolutionary socialist organizations, whether they be legitimate or not? Why don't they spend time attacking the Austrian school? Because we have potential, while they are useless. We have influence, while they do not. Think about it.

It's very simple, really. The ruling elite and the corporate oligarchy love the ideology of free trade and laissez-faire deregulation, as it opens up trade barriers to their exploitation. It allows them to enslave millions through wage slavery and allows them to disregard the resources of impoverished and developing countries. The reason that the ruling class does not use their corporate media to slander the libertarians is because many of them are honest. Someone like Ron Paul, despite having no economic knowledge whatsoever, is still an honest politician who would reject the military-industrial complex. Regardless, I tell you right now that if they find a laissez-faire type they can control any time soon, he will be center stage. Mark my words.

[trivas7]

Marxian economics obviously isn't mainstream either, but because it follows normal scientific procedure and accepts the basic economic facts, Marxians can get employment in academia (most Universities have at least one in their economics departments) and can get their papers published in reputable journals.
I see. This must explain its vast influence over G8 policy. It's good to know that what is not mainstream is, at least, employable.

[Demogorgon]

I see. This must explain its vast influence over G8 policy. It's good to know that what is not mainstream is, at least, employable.
What, exactly are you talking about? Do you think Austrian economics has any influence over G8 policy either? Marxian economics is mostly sen as an opposing view to mainstream economics. Austrian economics is just a bunch of unscientific gobbledygook.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Austrian economics is a weird little clique within the Friedmanite free-market clique. Both are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the face of the present economic crisis and the apparent economic plan of the Obama administration who seem to be following some form of Keynseianism.

[bruce]

Ok so there's like 3 or 4 leftist posters in this thread that have contributed their thoughts in direct, extensive posts and 1 capitalist poster who is seemingly outmatched. No offense MikeyJ, but your posts are not expressing the ideas of your side very well imo.

I'd like to see Demogrogon, Kassad, GeneCosta, and whoever I'm missing engage with Austrians and Capitalists that are more well versed in their ideas. Has this happened on this board before? Links? Would any of you be willing to debate someone from outside RevLeft? Thanks

[Demogorgon]

Ok so there's like 3 or 4 leftist posters in this thread that have contributed their thoughts in direct, extensive posts and 1 capitalist poster who is seemingly outmatched. No offense MikeyJ, but your posts are not expressing the ideas of your side very well imo.

I'd like to see Demogrogon, Kassad, GeneCosta, and whoever I'm missing engage with Austrians and Capitalists that are more well versed in their ideas. Has this happened on this board before? Links? Would any of you be willing to debate someone from outside RevLeft? Thanks
It has a habit of turning into slagging matches to be honest. Mikey has done very well here I think actually by keeping his cool and refusing to resort to the Social Conservatism Austrians normally fall back on.

Austrians are generally the worst capitalists to debate, apart from the Randroids of course, because their arguments tend to be based on a priori dogma rather than legitimate economic arguments.

[bruce]

It has a habit of turning into slagging matches to be honest. Mikey has done very well here I think actually by keeping his cool and refusing to resort to the Social Conservatism Austrians normally fall back on.

I agree MikeyJ has been very well mannered compared to some, err all but a few, others who share his beliefs. However I don't feel he has a strong understanding of some of the economic principles he's advocating. I say this based on experiences with other Austrians from another message board I read.

I certainly don't understand enough about economics or ethics to engage in any meaningful debate with them, but I'm very interested to see direct communication between someone with various leftist beliefs that can provide an extensive criticism.

Navigating through random FAQs gets old fast

[Pawn Power]

I think the biggest deference in regards to Ron Paul's stance of the war (bring all the troops home) and the peace and anti-war movement (bring all the troops home) is that Paul seems to only want this to happen because the US is wasting too much money, disregarding the the US military is actually killing millions of people.

[trivas7]

What, exactly are you talking about? Do you think Austrian economics has any influence over G8 policy either? Marxian economics is mostly sen as an opposing view to mainstream economics. Austrian economics is just a bunch of unscientific gobbledygook.
'Its' refers to Marxian economics in my previous post.

You take for granted that 1) economics is a science and that 2) there is a 'Marxian' variety, both propositions being debatable at best. W/o much preliminary understanding and agreement of what exactly those terms mean yours are merely arbitrary statements of the facts.

[Demogorgon]

'Its' refers to Marxian economics in my previous post.

You take for granted that 1) economics is a science and that 2) there is a 'Marxian' variety, both propositions being debatable at best. W/o much preliminary understanding and agreement of what exactly those terms mean yours are merely arbitrary statements of the facts.
I knew what you were referring to and asked you to explain in turn exactly where the influence of Austrian economics is.

If you want to continue believing that mind rot, that is your business, but don't expect the rest of us to humour you when you start saying silly things about economics not being a science. I know Austrians want it to be about them getting to proclaim whatever they like as fact, but the truth is that it is about gathering data on economic activity and analysing it to see how it all works. That is called science.

[trivas7]

[...] it [science] is about gathering data on economic activity and analysing it to see how it all works. That is called science.
If this is what Marx was about why is his legacy political, and not in mainstream economics? Only the ignorant and dogmatic cling to the pseudo-science of scientific socialism.

[Demogorgon]

If this is what Marx was about why is his legacy political, and not in mainstream economics? Only the ignorant and dogmatic cling to the pseudo-science of scientific socialism.
And who exactly clings to Austrian crap?

Anyway, I suggest you read what I wrote again. I told you that economics in the science of gathering data relating to the subject and analysing it to see how the whole process works and so on. Marxian economics proceeds in a manner consistent with this. Austrian mysticism does not.

[trivas7]

And who exactly clings to Austrian crap?

Prominent Austrian School economists of the 20th century include Joseph Schumpeter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter), Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek), Henry Hazlitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitt) and Murray Rothbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard), but these don't mean a damn to you.

Why not try answering my question?

[BobKKKindle$]

Prominent Austrian School economists of the 20th century include Joseph Schumpeter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter), Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek), Henry Hazlitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitt) and Murray Rothbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard), but these don't mean a damn to you. Even if we except the premise that all of these individuals were/are Austrians, by no means certain, what exactly are you trying to prove - that because the Austrian school of economics has a bunch of adherents, some of whom won various prizes and are respected by other economists, it must be true? The level of popular support for a given proposition or set of ideas does not in any way give a reliable indication of how correct it is. It is a basic fact that even subjects which claim to be scientific and objective can always be used for ideological purposes in order to protect the interests of those who might otherwise be threatened if the general population were exposed to the truth and informed of how the world really operates - the dominance of orientalist ideas inside fields such as geography and philology and the role of orientalism in legitimizing imperialism is an indisputable example of this. Economics suffers from the same lack of objectivity as these fields. Adopting free trade and abandoning welfare does not encourage general prosperity, and the accumulation of wealth at the top of society will not eventually "trickle down" and benefit everyone else - but these ideas do a good job of covering up what economic policy is really about - making sure that the richest and most exploitative members of society can maintain their privileged position and control over the state apparatus - and encourage people to think that capitalism is either the "only way" or the most efficient form of organization. In terms of its material impact on working people, "mainstream" economics is an abysmal failure, because several decades of corporate-driven globalization have intensified exploitation and have left the global south in state of complete dependence on the small group of countries which control global policy-making institutions like the IMF and comprise the imperialist core. Of course, this probably doesn't mean much to you, because Austrian economics builds its lies through a priori principles, without reference to the real world.

You're a complete joke, go and read a book or something.

By the way, in case anyone's interested, the text quoted from trivas in this post is taken straight from wikipedia. I don't normally use wikipedia as a source, because I prefer to do some independent research when I make arguments, but it's interesting to see what comes right after his quote:

"The Austrian School now lies somewhat outside the mainstream,and currently contributes relatively little to mainstream economic thought"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

Nice one, trivas! Did you accidentally miss that part?

[Demogorgon]

Prominent Austrian School economists of the 20th century include Joseph Schumpeter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter), Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek), Henry Hazlitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitt) and Murray Rothbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard), but these don't mean a damn to you.

Why not try answering my question?
Only Hayek had any political influence to speak of and he was extremely moderate as Austrians go. And as I have told you several times now, the Austrian School is almost overwhelmingly rejected as legitimate economics.

Now your question? The one about why Marx's legacy is regarded as political and not economic? Well the answer is that it isn't. Hes legacy is more or less evenly spread across politics, economics and philosophy.

[synthesis]

Only Hayek had any political influence to speak of and he was extremely moderate as Austrians go. And as I have told you several times now, the Austrian School is almost overwhelmingly rejected as legitimate economics.

Now your question? The one about why Marx's legacy is regarded as political and not economic? Well the answer is that it isn't. Hes legacy is more or less evenly spread across politics, economics and philosophy.

Also, if I understand correctly, Hayek isn't actually a Nobel laureate. The Economics prize was set up after he died and is funded by the Bank of Sweden instead of the investments made by the Nobel foundation.

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/economics/nominators.html


The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize. In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank (Sweden's central bank) instituted "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", and it has since been awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm.

[Demogorgon]

Also, if I understand correctly, Hayek isn't actually a Nobel laureate. The Economics prize was set up after he died and is funded by the Bank of Sweden instead of the investments made by the Nobel foundation.

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/economics/nominators.html
Yeah, it is generally considered a Nobel Prize, but it should be pointed out that for a long time there was an extremely right wing bias to the awards due to Assar Lindberg. Hayek himself was amazed to get the prize, he never thought ideas like his would be given that kind of accolade. At any rate, the awrd only increased academic interest in the Austrian School and led to them more thoroughly rejecting it.

[trivas7]

Now your question? The one about why Marx's legacy is regarded as political and not economic? Well the answer is that it isn't. Hes legacy is more or less evenly spread across politics, economics and philosophy.
Well, that gives Marxism the distinction of being overwhelmingly rejected as legitimate in all three areas, no?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Prominent Austrian School economists of the 20th century include Joseph Schumpeter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter), Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek), Henry Hazlitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitt) and Murray Rothbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard), but these don't mean a damn to you.

Why not try answering my question?

Lol. You call Marxists a fringe, and then try to use Rothbard as a counter-argument? How about you first grow some intellectual honesty?

Sorry. With the exception of Hayek, all of these names are set aside for "fringe" discussions. I'm willing to bet more people are aware of Karl Marx than Von Mises - while we're delving into your little popularity fetishes.

[trivas7]

Lol. You call Marxists a fringe, and then try to use Rothbard as a counter-argument? How about you first grow some intellectual honesty?

If you had read w/ any care at all you'd have noticed I was answering Demogorgon's question, not using Rothbard as a counter argument to anything at all, dickhead.

[Dejavu]

Lol. You call Marxists a fringe, and then try to use Rothbard as a counter-argument? How about you first grow some intellectual honesty?

Sorry. With the exception of Hayek, all of these names are set aside for "fringe" discussions. I'm willing to bet more people are aware of Karl Marx than Von Mises - while we're delving into your little popularity fetishes.


Well congratulations. You've confirmed that most of us ( that includes you guys and us) are on the fringes. Whopdy doo! Now how about getting to some substance?

Gene, are you ever gonna take up my offer to have a discussion on skype? Ask Roscharch , he and I have had some pretty good conversations. I'm a pretty nice guy and willing to hear you out. :D

[Dejavu]

If you had read w/ any care at all you'd have noticed I was answering Demogorgon's question, not using Rothbard as a counter argument to anything at all, dickhead.

Don't mind him. He usually just makes snark little comments and buzzes off. Ask him why he's seemingly refusing to chat it up with me on skype.

[Plagueround]

Well, that gives Marxism the distinction of being overwhelmingly rejected as legitimate in all three areas, no?

Not as much as you would like to believe. Even if you don't agree with the man's theories, to deny that he has quite a bit of legitimacy in these fields is incorrect. As I've mentioned before, he's is also highly, highly influential in sociology. I would agree that Marxism can be disastrous when people turn it into some sort of psuedo-religion though.

[bruce]

Well congratulations. You've confirmed that most of us ( that includes you guys and us) are on the fringes. Whopdy doo! Now how about getting to some substance?

Gene, are you ever gonna take up my offer to have a discussion on skype? Ask Roscharch , he and I have had some pretty good conversations. I'm a pretty nice guy and willing to hear you out. :D

Is there any way to have a 1 on 1 debate here on RevLeft? Probably with a more narrow focus than is the norm here and probably with one of the mods overseeing.

Dejavu, GeneCosta, or anyone else, would this be possible?

Also, Dejavu, would you, or have you in the past, recorded any skype discussions re: Austrianism? I'd be interested to hear this, as I've been looking for debates irl and they seem hard to come by

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If you had read w/ any care at all you'd have noticed I was answering Demogorgon's question, not using Rothbard as a counter argument to anything at all, dickhead.

Finally, some emotion out of you.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Don't mind him. He usually just makes snark little comments and buzzes off. Ask him why he's seemingly refusing to chat it up with me on skype.

Yet I chat with you on AIM whenever you message me.

I don't have skype on my Mac, and I'm not going to download it while I'm either working or taking a test. I have an online business to care to and online classes that take first priority. If you want to talk, you know my AIM. I'm online almost everyday. Save the files if you think it's worth keeping. For example, tonight I should be online by 9 PM EST. Message me and we can talk about anything you want. PM me if you have anymore questions.

Anyhow...

[bruce]

Save the files if you think it's worth keeping.

Please do, I think it would be very helpful for someone trying to learn

[trivas7]

Not as much as you would like to believe.
OTC, IMO Marx is extremely important historically, culturally.

[BobKKKindle$]

OTC, IMO Marx is extremely important historically, culturally. On the contrary, Plagueround is completely right - Marx is not just important for cultural and historical reasons, he is still studied today in universities throughout the world as part of sociology and politics courses because is recognized to have made major theoretical contributions to both of these areas, the his adherents have expanded on and updates his ideas in light of changing political circumstances. If you want to study politics at university, you will eventually have to study Marx - there's just no way to avoid it. As I type this, I've got a word document open - an essay comparing Marx and Rousseau - and a stack of Marxist books sitting beside me taken out from the university library. Irrelevant? I think not. You're the one who's irrelevant around here.

[trivas7]

On the contrary, Plagueround is completely right - Marx is not just important for cultural and historical reasons, he is still studied today in universities throughout the world as part of sociology and politics courses because is recognized to have made major theoretical contributions to both of these areas, the his adherents have expanded on and updates his ideas in light of changing political circumstances. If you want to study politics at university, you will eventually have to study Marx - there's just no way to avoid it. As I type this, I've got a word document open - an essay comparing Marx and Rousseau - and a stack of Marxist books sitting beside me taken out from the university library. Irrelevant? I think not. You're the one who's irrelevant around here.
He is studied for none of the reasons you think he is. Even staunch Marxists like David Harvey don't believe that a post-capitalist world will arrive any time soon. Marxism as a political force is spent. You need to get your nose out of the books and smell the capitalist air.

[Dejavu]

Is there any way to have a 1 on 1 debate here on RevLeft? Probably with a more narrow focus than is the norm here and probably with one of the mods overseeing.

Dejavu, GeneCosta, or anyone else, would this be possible?

Also, Dejavu, would you, or have you in the past, recorded any skype discussions re: Austrianism? I'd be interested to hear this, as I've been looking for debates irl and they seem hard to come by

Sure, I've been wanting to do this for a long time. I think voice-chat is by far the most interactive and best forum for exchanging ideas and building knowledge. Skype is free and well worth the few seconds you spend downloading it.

My contact info is to the upper right of my post box. If you have any specific questions or issues please let me know and I'd be happy to discuss them.

[Dejavu]

Yet I chat with you on AIM whenever you message me.

I don't have skype on my Mac, and I'm not going to download it while I'm either working or taking a test. I have an online business to care to and online classes that take first priority. If you want to talk, you know my AIM. I'm online almost everyday. Save the files if you think it's worth keeping. For example, tonight I should be online by 9 PM EST. Message me and we can talk about anything you want. PM me if you have anymore questions.

Anyhow...



I don't have skype on my Mac, and I'm not going to download it while I'm either working or taking a test. I have an online business to care to and online classes that take first priority. If you want to talk, you know my AIM. I'm online almost everyday. Save the files if you think it's worth keeping. For example, tonight I should be online by 9 PM EST. Message me and we can talk about anything you want. PM me if you have anymore questions.

Well surely if you have online schooling to tend to then you really would not have time to chat it up on AIM either. I find text a bit wanting and often they lack the full value of the argument someone is trying to put forward.

They have skype for Mac. ( Btw, you impress me. Congrats on using your brain and picking Mac over PC ;) )

Gene, how about this? I am sure that you can make at least sometime in the near future to engage in a voice chat with me ( does not even have to be long). I will patiently stand by and wait until its doable for you, I have no problem with that. As I recall earlier, you claimed that you were up for the voice chat a few months ago but somehow never seemed to get around to it.

Btw, I extend that offer to all here , communist and non-communist. My contact is on my profile and on the upper right portion of my message box.

Hope to hear from some of you. :)

[Kassad]

He is studied for none of the reasons you think he is. Even staunch Marxists like David Harvey don't believe that a post-capitalist world will arrive any time soon. Marxism as a political force is spent. You need to get your nose out of the books and smell the capitalist air.

I'm sure people said the same thing about African American and Women's rights. 'It's not coming any time soon, so why even try?' Is that the logic of people like you? Things are difficult? Things are tiresome, so we should just give up?

A post-capitalist system may not arrive soon, but when opportunies arise, people like us need to be prepared because people who aren't prepared are very likely to succumb to counterrevolutionary and reactionary propaganda, much like you do. It's our job as revolutionaries to attempt to organize and educate so what a revolutionary situation can be handled properly.

You're incredibly reactionary, as you just cling to the system because the chances of things being changed drastically are slim. 'The capitalist air,' as you describe it, is a stench of starvation, exploitation and manipulation that consistently turns people away and rejects them necessities, such as housing, education and food. The capitalist air has incited mass starvation and colonial occupation worldwide, but we should just sit back, relax and accept it, right?

The system you advocate is simplistic, because instead of large groups of educated people striving for revolutionary change, you advocate a system based on the education and control of a tiny minority; an elite oligarchy that maintains their power structure through propaganda, slander and manipulation. It's sad to see that you've succumbed to their will, but ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

[коровьев]

What I'm stating is that Congressman Ron Paul and his free market, laissez-faire libertarian capitalists advocate deregulation of the market and the private sector. They believe, falsely, that the deregulation will give room to incentive and the competition will promote the use of higher quality and more efficient products. We, as rational thinkers, realize that the profit motive in this scenario actually leads to less-stable and efficient products, as competing corporations will make the cheapest products they are required to so they can make a profit. You still did not demonstrate how a company seeking to make a profit results in instability and inefficient products. It seems all things being equal, those who produce stable and efficient products are rewarded with more profit.


Also, history shows us that corporate powerhouses will quickly unite and claim a monopoly on the market for a product if allowed. If by “allowed” you mean receive help from government via laws and regulations, then you are correct.


Regardless, deregulation and market capitalism's ideological application allows the banking groups these same deregulatory schemes, which allows them to manipulate the market. Nope. Without the help of government any manipulation would be risky and wasteful.


The deregulation that the conservatives advocate is exactly what caused the banking crisis, as it allows them to manipulate resources and profit for their personal gains with no oversight. The government has literally no ability to regulate these banking fiends because of deregulation and the corporate takeover of the means of production, along with the government. Deregulation caused the problem and that is exactly what Ron Paul advocates. Just because you repeat yourself 27 times does not mean you are correct. Deregulation is not the reason why we are experiencing tough economic times.


Slavery, a barbaric form of discrimination and oppression of one's rights, was only outlawed and legislated by the federal government's intervention and the eventual passing of the 13th Amendment. By Ron Paul's constitutionalist ideology, slavery should have been left to the states and no federal legislation to end discrimination should be passed. By Ron Paul constitutionalist ideology, the constitution should not have permitted slavery and each state should have deal it with it on it’s own terms.


He's praising an inherently flawed document that does a pretty good job at allowing anything to be made legal by a majority vote in a state. That includes murder, child abduction and other assorted atrocities. So any politician who praises any modern constitution and any modern government is as evil as Ron Paul?


On to Dr. Paul's xenophobia, I need no real citation or justification. Lol


, instead of maybe, I don't know, recognizing the social ails and problems in society? So because you feel we have societal ails, Ron Paul is wrong….. This is basically what most of your arguments come down to.


He supports the same deregulation and free trade that has been advocated by the horrendous Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr. and George W. Bush administrations. This is completely false. Those people would have very little with which they can agree with Ron Paul.


who had really ever heard of the Austrian School of Economics? No one, because they are totally irrelevant. Someone who studies economics?



Not only do they advocate genocide in the form of free trade and deregulation, lol


but they also are quick to disregard their economic ideology's lack of protection for the environment. Protection of private property means protection of environment.


Under a system of deregulation, who's to stop a corporation from bulldozing an entire forest or a habitat for wild species? Security organization and the property owner


These Austrian types are wealthy. They are white and they are able to manipulate society to their will.. No; they are just educated on economics.


I have yet to meet an impoverished minority citizen who supports Austrian economics I have. So what?


. Of course these people support low taxes and market reforms, as it allows them to make a profit at the expense of others. That is now how capitalism works. You make profit by satisfying the desires of others.


s it sounds great from their side, but the thousands who have died due to starvation thanks to deregulation would beg to differ No, you are just trying to confuse all sorts of things.


Would you be comfortable confronting someone who has been oppressed and taken advantage of by a deregulated corporation in Africa?

You are just confusing terms


If the American government didn't fear a socialist uprising, why would they spend so much time slandering the workers movements and the revolutionary socialist organizations, whether they be legitimate or not? Why don't they spend time attacking the Austrian school? Because we have potential, while they are useless Fantastic


The ruling elite and the corporate oligarchy love the ideology of free trade and laissez-faire deregulation, No they don’t. They like the ideology of government control and regulation.

[Kassad]

Why don't you respond rationally and in paragraph form? Also, why don't you provide evidence for your assertions, since half the points I made, you just plain ignored because it was convenient for you. Try again.

[коровьев]

Why don't you respond rationally and in paragraph form?My reply is pretty rational. It is not in paragraph form, because your posts are filled with a lot of things which are very false and I do not have time to waste to address them all; the easiest way to reply to you is to break your post down and point out your most erroneous misconceptions .

seriously something like:

He supports the same deregulation and free trade that has been advocated by the horrendous Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr. and George W. Bush administrations.

is extremely misguided


why don't you provide evidence for your assertionsbecause you are the one making the assertions.



half the points I made, you just plain ignored because it was convenient for you.I believe I addressed most of what you said.

[Kassad]

You said 'lol' twice and said 'fantastic' once, which totally ignore the point and provide no counter argument. As I said, I'll respond to paragraphs. If you refuse to post rationally and in a proper fashion, I think I can attempt to ignore your incredible ignorance. Have a nice day.

[коровьев]

You said 'lol' twice and said 'fantastic' onceyeah, your arguments were completely ridiculous. Ron Paul supports genocide because he supports free market? You really expect this to be taken seriously?


As I said, I'll respond to paragraphs.Again sorry, but I can not spend time typing paragraphs to a person who does not understand the difference between Ron Paul and Reagan. It would be just a ridiculous waste of my time. Once you demonstrate at least basic understanding of my position, and have something resembling sensible arguments, then you will see more content in my posts.

[IcarusAngel]

Libertarian trolls almost always respond in one-line propaganda statements taken from a laundry list of Libertarian talking points provided to them by right-wing websites.

"Private property protects the environment."

"You can sue the polluters."

"The free-market will deal with monopolies."

And so on.

Totalitarians are always irrational. Sometimes it's easy to forget that.

[коровьев]

Libertarian trolls almost always respond in one-line propaganda statements taken from a laundry list of Libertarian talking points provided to them by right-wing websites.

How else to reply to people who say that libertarians do not care about environment...

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well surely if you have online schooling to tend to then you really would not have time to chat it up on AIM either. I find text a bit wanting and often they lack the full value of the argument someone is trying to put forward.

They have skype for Mac. ( Btw, you impress me. Congrats on using your brain and picking Mac over PC ;) )

Gene, how about this? I am sure that you can make at least sometime in the near future to engage in a voice chat with me ( does not even have to be long). I will patiently stand by and wait until its doable for you, I have no problem with that. As I recall earlier, you claimed that you were up for the voice chat a few months ago but somehow never seemed to get around to it.

Btw, I extend that offer to all here , communist and non-communist. My contact is on my profile and on the upper right portion of my message box.

Hope to hear from some of you. :)
You want to talk, hmm? Well that puts AIM out the window.

PM me. We'll see what I can do. Last time I couldn't figure out how the hell to use the mic, but I've since made imovies.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

Libertarian trolls almost always respond in one-line propaganda statements taken from a laundry list of Libertarian talking points provided to them by right-wing websites.

"Private property protects the environment."

"You can sue the polluters."

"The free-market will deal with monopolies."

And so on.

Totalitarians are always irrational. Sometimes it's easy to forget that.

Well please enlighten us and tell us why he is so wrong??

[MMIKEYJ]

Well please enlighten us and tell us why he is so wrong??
Hah! +1

[коровьев]

Private property is evil, duh

[MMIKEYJ]

Private property is evil, duh
Thats like saying money is evil or a car is evil.. private property is neither evil nor good.. it just is.

[Kassad]

Thats like saying money is evil or a car is evil.. private property is neither evil nor good.. it just is.

You truly do deserve a round of applause for ignoring the multitude of questions, responses and answers presented to you that you have gone to incredible lengths to ignore. Your incompetence was proven by your first post, but you just keep setting records, to be honest.

The term 'private property' is empirical. It is a means of exploitation that is comparable to using other basic necessities, such as food and healthcare, for profit. Private property infers that someone owns and dominates that land. That means that the transfer of property and housing are done for profit. This has allowed millions upon millions in the United States and worldwide to be left out on the streets while luxury housing complexes sit totally empty; waiting for the highest bidder.

This is a totally bourgeoisie concept. This is another means of exploitation, as it forces people to submit their labor value for something that is a basic requirement to sustain human natural life. Without shelter, millions are left to die. Millions are left to starve. Millions are left to freeze to death as the bank forecloses on their homes, often leaving entire families and children out on the streets. Tyranny does not discriminate, especially not in this case.

Instead, why not spend some of the resources used to create luxury for a few, for all? The United States easily has the potential to give shelter to anyone who requires it, but private interests and capitalist bankers do not care about people. They care about profits. Deregulation and corporate control has allowed this elitist oligarchy to take control of the means of production, which directly allows them to manipulate basic needs such as housing and education; even food and water are used to produce profit.

So what are the choices here? Exploitation or collaboration? Freedom or slavery? Dominance or liberation? Private property is totally immoral because it exploits those who can afford it and leaves those who cannot afford property to die. Capitalism in crisis once again.


Well please enlighten us and tell us why he is so wrong??

Gladly. What America has now is a tiny dose of the completely surreal fantasy of total laissez-faire capitalsm, which would generally mean a total concentration of wealth in the hands of an even tinier minority who would practically use wage slavery to maintain societies. Deregulation of the banks and the corporations has allowed inflation, the manipulation of the currency and overproduction which all caused the curent economic crisis. When you use necessities for profit, banks win and workers lose. Private property does nor protect the environment and you can't just 'sue them' because the bourgeoisie elite have very tight control over the government which, in turn, has very tight control over the courts. That's why corporate executives rarely ever pay the price for their crimes, let alone murderous and corrupt politicians. Therefore, the system is a vicious cycle which can only be solved by regulatory planning which would have prevented this current recession and every recession before it.

Also, before some of the anti-monopoly and anti-trust legislation during the 1900's, bourgeoisie elitists such as Rockefeller and Carnegie were quite skilled at using their horizontal and vertical integration schemes which, for a significant amount of time, monopolized a great deal of the markets they sought to control. The free market didn't deal with the monopolies. Regulatory standards and proper management of resources solved the potential crisis and prevented the manipulation of the market by a tiny group of elitists. Laissez-faire conservatives would revoke those regulations as quickly as possible, which would likely lead to competition being stifled, as corporate executives could easily collaborate to gain total control over the market.

[MMIKEYJ]

Kassad, this is my impression of you talking:

"Bourgeoisie... blah blah -ism, -ism, -ism, capitalism bad... blah blah worker revolt... down with the bourgeoisie.. etc ad infinitum...

Im not trying to convince you or convert you, and I cant have a civil discussion with you because you get all pissy. You dont want to understand or learn my POV, you just want to argue, like most people in this country.

Personally, Im interested in learning the subtle differences between the 26 different types of -isms there seems to be... stalinism, leninism, trotskyism, etc.. And going back and forth with you isnt going to teach me anything.

[MMIKEYJ]

An interesting quote on this topic:

You have a choice between the natural stability of gold and the honesty and intelligence of the members of government. And with all due respect for those gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the capitalist system lasts, vote for gold. - George Bernard Shaw

The idea of a gold standard is interesting to say the least. I don't think it serves any purpose to say that all libertarians have been bigots unless supporting the gold standard must inevitably means hating ethnic minorities and the like. I have to say, arguments for the gold standard seem more convincing to me than they should, but then that's probably because I have no clue about economics and the only ones who even attempt to educate people on the subject are the Austrian school. Why is that?

Ive thought about this, and the best reason I can see is because its common sense. Everybody who advocates Austrian economics basically had to teach themselves and re-learn things.. and theres no bullshit in it.

Keynesians always opt for some grand intellectual disguise to explain away their fallacies... But money isnt really that complicated.

People have to work, save their money. Then they can spend their money.

Keynesians think you dont have to work or save, but somehow you can magically just keep spending money..

[Qwerty Dvorak]

On the contrary, Plagueround is completely right - Marx is not just important for cultural and historical reasons, he is still studied today in universities throughout the world as part of sociology and politics courses because is recognized to have made major theoretical contributions to both of these areas, the his adherents have expanded on and updates his ideas in light of changing political circumstances. If you want to study politics at university, you will eventually have to study Marx - there's just no way to avoid it. As I type this, I've got a word document open - an essay comparing Marx and Rousseau - and a stack of Marxist books sitting beside me taken out from the university library. Irrelevant? I think not. You're the one who's irrelevant around here.
He made contributions to academia to be sure, but contributing to academia doesn't actually mean much does it? He is studied as part of any politics course because Marxism was a political theory, but that does not mean it "contributed" to the field in any positive, meaningful sense. It's not like a contribution to the field of medicine where someone comes up with a cure for a horrible disease.

[Jack]

I love how ya'll call him "Dr." Paul.

He's an OBGYN, which is funny in itself, not a professor.

[FreeMan]

The term 'private property' is empirical. It is a means of exploitation that is comparable to using other basic necessities, such as food and healthcare, for profit. Private property infers that someone owns and dominates that land. That means that the transfer of property and housing are done for profit. This has allowed millions upon millions in the United States and worldwide to be left out on the streets while luxury housing complexes sit totally empty; waiting for the highest bidder.

WHy don't this supposed millions get a job and start renting then? WHat the hell are they doing in the street with a liquor bottle? A freaking non english speakign illegal can come to this country and make a living. Why can't this beggers freaking work to feed themselves instead of giving society the burden to take care fo them?



This is a totally bourgeoisie concept. This is another means of exploitation, as it forces people to submit their labor value for something that is a basic requirement to sustain human natural life. Without shelter, millions are left to die. Millions are left to starve. Millions are left to freeze to death as the bank forecloses on their homes, often leaving entire families and children out on the streets. Tyranny does not discriminate, especially not in this case.Dude, what the hell are you talking about? The banks who are foreclosing homes aren't causing millions of supposedly poor people to freeze to death or starve.

ANd there is nothign wrong with buyign a property and renting it out or whatever.

People shouldn't have bought homes they couldn't afford. They shouldn't have bought a home with some variable interest rate. Who the hell is stupid enough to buy something where the interest rate moves around?




Instead, why not spend some of the resources used to create luxury for a few, for all? The United States easily has the potential to give shelter to anyone who requires it, but private interests and capitalist bankers do not care about people. They care about profits. Deregulation and corporate control has allowed this elitist oligarchy to take control of the means of production, which directly allows them to manipulate basic needs such as housing and education; even food and water are used to produce profit.Because I don't freaking want to how about that. I rather spend 50 bucks on drinks in any one night then trying to help out the sober kids in africa. Thats what your whole system depends on isn't it? It forces people to help others. Its my freaking choice, if I want to help another I will decide. Not the stupid majority,, not fuckign you, or the stupid king, or the stupid religion. Thats what capitlism is all about. Freedom to not have to put up with other people.




So what are the choices here? Exploitation or collaboration? Freedom or slavery? Dominance or liberation? Private property is totally immoral because it exploits those who can afford it and leaves those who cannot afford property to die. Capitalism in crisis once again.
No, people who don't own private property aren't dieing. Being force to help other people is not freedom. Forcing wealthy people to give up their wealth for the stupid poor is not freedom by giving them jobs, giving them a good price or giving them food or whatever needs they claim.




Gladly. What America has now is a tiny dose of the completely surreal fantasy of total laissez-faire capitalsm, which would generally mean a total concentration of wealth in the hands of an even tinier minority who would practically use wage slavery to maintain societies. Deregulation of the banks and the corporations has allowed inflation, the manipulation of the currency and overproduction which all caused the curent economic crisis. When you use necessities for profit, banks win and workers lose. Private property does nor protect the environment and you can't just 'sue them' because the bourgeoisie elite have very tight control over the government which, in turn, has very tight control over the courts. That's why corporate executives rarely ever pay the price for their crimes, let alone murderous and corrupt politicians. Therefore, the system is a vicious cycle which can only be solved by regulatory planning which would have prevented this current recession and every recession before it.The recession was cause by the government when it forced banks to give people with low income home loans. Big government is a socialist/communist idea.

[Kassad]

Oh, please go fuck yourself. Do you really think all homeless people are alcoholics, and for that matter, why do we criticize these underprivileged people and help them? Why don't we have social programs that help them battle addiction, aside from absurd Church-based charity groups that do nothing but preach religious theocracy and embracing irresponsibility? Your total ignorance is shown from the first words you post. The question you fail to see is why should people have to struggle with mediocre-wage jobs and struggle to pay absurd amounts of rent when we have the resources to provide proper jobs and housing without this struggle? That's capitalism. Exploiting resources that we could give to everyone, but choose not to because we can make a pretty penny off of those necessities and commodities.

First of all, people aren't 'buying houses they cannot afford.' People need shelter and most of those being foreclosed on are likely struggling like millions of others in this capitalist-crippled economy. People can't even afford basic shelter, but they take out loans from predatory lenders that the capitalist economy supports and does not regulate properly. Why should I have to pay for something I need or why should the average worker make $5.00 an hour when a corporate executive gets a bonus in their collapsing company while the thousands they employ are laid off and sent back to their families with no money in their pockets? The common denominator is bourgeoisie exploitation. It should offend you that we have the means to feed, clothe and house every person in the world, but we don't do it. Why? Because why should we care if people starve? I can make money off of those thirsty, diseased children in Africa! I can profit while people freeze to death outside, although there are thousands of luxury houses and housing units that are vacant in the United States.

But it's your choice. It's simple for you to eat well while others starve, but your narrow-minded perspective fails for so many reasons. You don't need to lift a fucking finger. You know what? The governent can decide tomorrow that they 'don't feel like' legislating rape anymore. Legalize it. Or murder? Theft? They don't feel like legislating it, so they shouldn't? The problem is, your ignorant ass doesn't have to lift a finger to make a difference because, contrary to your self-absorbed ego, the system doesn't revolve around you. It revolves around collaboration and community organization. The United States has the resources to house, clothe and feed everyone, as I've already said, but people like you who are so closed-off; so resistant to change, will likely be left behind when the time for radical change comes. It's a shame that you are so ignorant that you must project your hatred on other people. Just because you're privileged; you were lucky enough to survive, others don't deserve that same opportunity. For shame.

Big government is a capitalist idea. Sorry. Communists call for the destruction of the state to be replaced by ownership of the means of production by the people themselves. No bureaucrats, no owners, no executives. No presidents, no leaders, no landlords. This is the smallest government and most reduced form of government tyranny in existence, contrary to what free market surrealists claim. The recession was caused by corporations, like AIG and Bear Stears, being allowed to speculate and risk money belligerently. It profits for a while, but eventually, you make the wrong investment. Who has to bail them out? The taxpayers, of course. The working class loses its jobs, its benefits and its necessities so that it can squander the little remaining wealth to give bonuses to corporate executives who caused the economic crisis with their speculation in the first place. As usual, the elite profit at our expense. Also, your assertion that people aren't 'dieing (lol)' as you say, is totally unfounded. People freeze to death every day during the cold winter. Thousands die from starvation every day, regardless of season. People die at the expense of profits. And that's capitalism.

[Trystan]

That video reinforced my belief that Austrians are economically illiterate; oh the Federal Reserve! The government! Regulation! It's not capitalism! It is in my dictionary pal, and it keeps falling on its ass.

[Jack]

FreeMan is defending my FREEDOM to starve and be a slave. Why do you all want to take away our freedom? :laugh:

[FreeMan]

FreeMan is defending my FREEDOM to starve and be a slave. Why do you all want to take away our freedom? :laugh:

Actually I am defending myn from being forced to help you out when you or anyone for that matter is starving or working like a slave.

[Kassad]

Why don't you address my post then and stop avoiding the real questions? It must be hard to come to terms with what a sick, cold-hearted, narrow-minded human being you truly are. Honestly, if your kind made up the majority in the Stone Age and during the earliest civilizations, we'd all be dead by now. Whoever got the last shot at the Mammoth or the Tiger would keep all the meat and fur, while everyone else would starve. Our race would've been wiped off the face of the planet a long time ago, but that's pretty much what your kind advocates anyway.

[Demogorgon]

Actually I am defending myn from being forced to help you out when you or anyone for that matter is starving or working like a slave.
Would you defend my freedom to beat you to death and sexually abuse your corpse? Presumably if freedom is about you getting to do as you wish without regards to the needs of others, I get to do the same thing?

[Dejavu]

Would you defend my freedom to beat you to death and sexually abuse your corpse? Presumably if freedom is about you getting to do as you wish without regards to the needs of others, I get to do the same thing?

He was talking about negative liberty while you are talking about positive liberty. Neg.Liberty is much easier to universalize both in pratice and theory. If you talk about universalizing positive liberty or rights then everyone becomes a means or tool for everyone else's ends. There is a difference when saying 'freedom from' and 'freedom to.'

[MikeSC]

He was talking about negative liberty while you are talking about positive liberty. Neg.Liberty is much easier to universalize both in pratice and theory. If you talk about universalizing positive liberty or rights then everyone becomes a means or tool for everyone else's ends. There is a difference when saying 'freedom from' and 'freedom to.'

He was defending people being starved and worked like slaves. That is definately a "freedom from" (freedom from starvation and slavery, that is). Private property would be "freedom to", it's a freedom to declare something as your own domain rather than every person holding it equally and democratically. Those being starved and worked like slaves deserve their "freedom from" a tyrannical imposition, like private property. He was arguing for the "freedom to" impose and uphold such tyranny for his own gain.

[Demogorgon]

He was talking about negative liberty while you are talking about positive liberty. Neg.Liberty is much easier to universalize both in pratice and theory. If you talk about universalizing positive liberty or rights then everyone becomes a means or tool for everyone else's ends. There is a difference when saying 'freedom from' and 'freedom to.'
The difference is purely an invention. At any rate, if, as he says, he does not care about others, why should I care about him?

To put it another way, if you rely on saying we do not need to care about others (as he does) to deny positive rights, you cannot then say we do need to have regard for them when it comes to negative rights.

It may very well be that you do believe we should have regard for others and deny positive freedom on other grounds, but this individual has explicitly said that others do not matter, how then can he claim that I would be outwith my rights to kill him?

This raises another issue, that I intend to make a seperate thread about, tomorrow probably, rather than continue here, but to put it briefly, it does seem that if you try to claim that we should only live for ourselves, it does seem to lead to the logical conclusion that one should seek to dominate others so long as it is in their self interest.

[Dejavu]

He was defending people being starved and worked like slaves. That is definately a "freedom from" (freedom from starvation and slavery, that is). Private property would be "freedom to", it's a freedom to declare something as your own domain rather than every person holding it equally and democratically. Those being starved and worked like slaves deserve their "freedom from" a tyrannical imposition, like private property. He was arguing for the "freedom to" impose and uphold such tyranny for his own gain.

Sorry this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Implying that one should have freedom from starvation neccessarily implies that one should have freedom from hungar.

Unfortunately reality doesn't work this way. We are biological beings and we require food for energy. Strictly speaking, food isn't something we're entitlted to. In order for humans to have food, they must exhume labor to have it and this is true for any living species.

By saying one has freedom to food without working for it implies that one has freedom to someone else's labor in terms of producing the food since food isn't something that doesn't require production.

The only catagory of human beings I can see have a just claim to others' labor in terms of producing food is children since they neccessarily depend on their parents for things like food.

That said, I think a society which shares food with its needy is reflective of positive values of individuals within that society. However, I cannot see how 'freedom from starvation or hungar' is exactly a universal principle of morality or even realistic since it necessarily requires people to have 'freedom to' other people's energy for their own ends. Again, it suggests that it is moral for a society to use others' as a means to achieve their own ends.

This is almost always the problem when you try to assert positive liberty as a universal moral principle.

[MikeSC]

Sorry this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Implying that one should have freedom from starvation neccessarily implies that one should have freedom from hungar.

Unfortunately reality doesn't work this way. We are biological beings and we require food for energy. Strictly speaking, food isn't something we're entitlted to. In order for humans to have food, they must exhume labor to have it and this is true for any living species.

By saying one has freedom to food without working for it implies that one has freedom to someone else's labor in terms of producing the food since food isn't something that doesn't require production.

The only catagory of human beings I can see have a just claim to others' labor in terms of producing food is children since they neccessarily depend on their parents for things like food.

That said, I think a society which shares food with its needy is reflective of positive values of individuals within that society. However, I cannot see how 'freedom from starvation or hungar' is exactly a universal principle of morality or even realistic since it necessarily requires people to have 'freedom to' other people's energy for their own ends. Again, it suggests that it is moral for a society to use others' as a means to achieve their own ends.

This is almost always the problem when you try to assert positive liberty as a universal moral principle.

No, you misunderstand my post- the other poster was saying that property owners have no moral obligation to give a person work, to prevent them from starving. The positive "liberty" is in giving the capitalist the right to deny a person use of something, because they claim it as their own property. This claim of property is the imposition, the denial of work- not the wish to work on natural resources to satisfy their hunger.

EDIT: Question Time's on! I'll be on tomorrow, to continue if you like :)

[Demogorgon]

It seems to me that it is a hallmark of civilised society to regard its people as having both rights and responsibilities. People should have the right to the necessities they require to live and the responsibility to contribute their fair share within the scope of their abilities. If people refuse to contribute, they can, if necessary, be deprived of things other than necessities, and that tends to be a pretty good incentive.

Really though, we have to accept as a society, that we have responsibility to others and that we must help those that need help. In return if we should ever need help ourselves, we should expect to receive it.

[Dejavu]

The difference is purely an invention. At any rate, if, as he says, he does not care about others, why should I care about him?

The difference might be an invention but we can say concepts of liberty or moralily are also inventions and abstractions but that doesn't mean they are automatically invalid propositions. How do you determine he does not care about others? You might be right but just because he isn't being charitable doesn't mean that he is going out claming he has the freedom to murder people because he disagrees with them. We could say he cares about others enough not to violate their negative rights.

If you earned $1000 and refused to share that with anyone can I then claim I have the right to kill you on the grounds ' well he doesn't care about anyone else, why should I care about him?'


To put it another way, if you rely on saying we do not need to care about others (as he does) to deny positive rights, you cannot then say we do need to have regard for them when it comes to negative rights.

I did not say we should not care about others. I was simply saying that it is extremely difficult to universalize positive rights as a moral principle.


It may very well be that you do believe we should have regard for others and deny positive freedom on other grounds, but this individual has explicitly said that others do not matter, how then can he claim that I would be outwith my rights to kill him?

Read above. He may say he doesn't care about others and that would make him corrupt in the mind I think but worthy of murder? I don't think so. This is like saying someone who has a very self-centered view should be murdered on the grounds of that view. He can think basically what he wants but is he violating your freedom?


This raises another issue, that I intend to make a seperate thread about, tomorrow probably, rather than continue here, but to put it briefly, it does seem that if you try to claim that we should only live for ourselves, it does seem to lead to the logical conclusion that one should seek to dominate others so long as it is in their self interest.

I didn't make that claim. That is an ontological utilitarian view. Please read my posts more closely. We should be free to live according to our preferences but within the limits of reason and not violate others' freedom to do the same.

[synthesis]

By saying one has freedom to food without working for it implies that one has freedom to someone else's labor in terms of producing the food since food isn't something that doesn't require production.

Capitalism is freedom to someone else's labor, and as long as inheritance exists you cannot suggest that such freedoms are earned. Capitalism is a few people's freedom to the labor of everyone else. Communism is a transformation of the vehicles for private gain - land, factories, technology - into agents of the public good.

[Dejavu]

Capitalism is freedom to someone else's labor, and as long as inheritance exists you cannot suggest that such freedoms are earned. Capitalism is a few people's freedom to the labor of everyone else. Communism is a transformation of the vehicles for private gain - land, factories, technology - into agents of the public good.

Slavery is the idea that one has the freedom to someone else's labor without compensation. I understand you conflate capitalism with slavery probably but strictly speaking, conflating terms leads to confusion.

Also if communism means producing for the public, then you would have to show how private enterprise never produces for the public.

Who determines the public good if not the private individuals that make up that public?

[Dejavu]

The positive "liberty" is in giving the capitalist the right to deny a person use of something, because they claim it as their own property.

It is the private individual's freedom from having things taken from him without his consent. This is the way I look at it anyway.



It seems to me that it is a hallmark of civilised society to regard its people as having both rights and responsibilities.


I agree with you in principle. I would also add that a key element of a civilized society , in my view , is that individulas have the freedom from coercion or rather the freedom from being forced as a means to someone else's ends.

I think any civilized society would voluntarily organize communally and take on duties to socially help out. I just don't see why this necessarily excludes people having personal property and a free market.

[synthesis]

Slavery is the idea that one has the freedom to someone else's labor without compensation. I understand you conflate capitalism with slavery probably but strictly speaking, conflating terms leads to confusion. As an argument, that simply does not make sense. Chattel slave-owners had to feed, clothe and shelter their slaves (the ones they didn't kill on a whim) or else they simply lost their investment.

(That's a disgustingly rational way to look at it; I'm only proving a point.)

So you can't say that slavery means work without compensation. Chattel slaves are compensated, but their compensation is unjust. So is the system.

The primary difference between then and now is that the lash of the whip has been replaced with empty stomachs and cold nights on the concrete.



Also if communism means producing for the public, then you would have to show how private enterprise never produces for the public.Private enterprise produces for public demand, but for private gains.

Communism produces for public demand, for public gains.



Who determines the public good if not the private individuals that make up that public?Under capitalism, demand is democratic but the "public good" is not, in practice, decided democratically.

Capitalism exploits the demand of the many in the interest of the good of a few; communism is a reconciliation of public demand with the public good.

[Demogorgon]

The difference might be an invention but we can say concepts of liberty or moralily are also inventions and abstractions but that doesn't mean they are automatically invalid propositions.
Those are a recognition of the fact that any society has to agree to a set of "rules" by which to live by. How we treat other people in essence. Discussion of "rights" and "liberty" are a good way to put this in perspective but become dangerous when they become too abstract. Our morals and our notions of liberty have to based on the health of our society. If we abstract it too much, we can well end up advocating something that in fact harms our society.


How do you determine he does not care about others? You might be right but just because he isn't being charitable doesn't mean that he is going out claming he has the freedom to murder people because he disagrees with them. We could say he cares about others enough not to violate their negative rights. Well when you read some of what he has posted, you may see why I don't think he cares about others at all. In fairness to you, he looks more like a straight misanthrope than any kind of Libertarian.


I did not say we should not care about others. I was simply saying that it is extremely difficult to universalize positive rights as a moral principle.

It isn't really. If we decide for instance that all people are entitled to healthcare and education for instance, it is perfectly possible to implement a system to deliver this. All Western countries achieve the latter and all but America, the former.

Of course, I think you might be talking about a theoretical rather than practical problems, but again that is a case of abstracting things too much.


Read above. He may say he doesn't care about others and that would make him corrupt in the mind I think but worthy of murder? I don't think so. This is like saying someone who has a very self-centered view should be murdered on the grounds of that view. He can think basically what he wants but is he violating your freedom?

My question was not why I should not kill him for disagreeing with me, but why I should not kill him for my sexual pleasure (I hasten to add that we are being entirely hypothetical here!). I am basically asking, in as hard hitting a way as I can, why I should not, presuming I do not need to have regard for others, directly harm others if it is in my self interest.


I didn't make that claim. That is an ontological utilitarian view. Please read my posts more closely. We should be free to live according to our preferences but within the limits of reason and not violate others' freedom to do the same.Well I wasn't talking specifically about you, but let's think this through. You want to place limits on people's behaviour in order that they do not behave in an unacceptable ways to others. That is fair enough, I doubt many would disagree with that. But you want to determine these limits in an abstract way, based upon differentiating different types of freedom according to some measure other than how it shapes society.

That is problematic enough but what is even worse is when some Libertarians tell us that pursuing our own self interest is of paramount importance. Such a proposition inevitably clashes with negative liberty anyway as it is obviously going to be in some people's self interest to harm others, but it leads to the bigger problem that if somebody has the strength to do so, it is inevitably going to be the case that they can maximise their benefit and their fulfillment of their potential by dominating others. That is why some very nasty groups talk about their views in terms of providing maximum freedom for those with strength.

It is very difficult to argue that people should act for their own benefit and not worry about helping others but they must stop when they might hurt others in a different way.

[MikeSC]

It is the private individual's freedom from having things taken from him without his consent. This is the way I look at it anyway.For that to be true, it is a prerequisite that we can say that they hold their property legitimately. But we know that all property is the result of seizure. The individual has no right to the property, it is getting taken away by someone with no right to it. There's no kind of moral equillibrium to be had with private property- whoevers hands it's in, it's there because of seizure.

[Octobox]

You guys make your arguments too complex.

Here's the skinny and how the In-Voluntarist and Voluntarist deal with it.

The Big Bankers need the Senior Politician (to abdicate)

The Big Unionist need the Senior Politician (to control junior politician vote and receive lobbyist dollars -- pass regulatory advantages, tax breaks, subsidies, fiat credit, and bailouts)

The Big Corporatist need the Senior Politician (to control junior politician vote and receive lobbyist dollars -- pass regulatory advantages, tax breaks, subsidies, fiat credit, and bailouts)

The In-Voluntarist believes you need the "right" senior politicians in there -- a person who unlike them will not abdicate their individual rights away to the highest authority (they essentially want to abdicate their individual authority to a non-anarchist politician, believing this person to be of the moral fiber to NOT abdicate that authority over the individual to a yet higher power). I have yet to meet a "group" of people who do not follow this syllogism.

The "true" Voluntarist knows that we as individuals cannot abdicate our authority to people who abdicate their authority to un-known individuals / cartels. We do not bend on this issue. The "philosophical" Voluntarist gushes nostalgic whenever you mention the "days" when we didn't bend, but falls back on bending as a temporary sollution to the bending problem.

If you do not like those three "realities" then here is one solution.

Vote-out-the-incumbent
Vote-out-the-corporatist (form a Consumer Union - buy from the least or zero lobbying corporations - buy organic or local where practical - develop a website for product suggestions/substitutes)
Vote-out-the-unionist (form a Consumer Union - buy from non-union corporations)

1-2-3

Always vote for the non-incumbent -- this destroys the lobbying base by making them compete for 535 votes rather than 40 or so senior votes. Is it clear how the junior politician "sells" his vote to the senior?

Just some thoughts

Octobox

[MMIKEYJ]

I love how ya'll call him "Dr." Paul.

He's an OBGYN, which is funny in itself, not a professor.

Most people I know have more respect for a "Dr." thats actually a medical doctor..

Not a "Doctor of literature" or something like that.