"End The Fed" debate help...

[R_P_A_S]

This is NOT like me... But I sorta shot my self in the foot. I like to pride my self in having historically accurate facts and what not but on this one.. my emotion got the best of me and I sorta just blurred out the first thing that came to mind... I need help to counter it.

"BEF0RE I9I3 WE USED T0 KEEP 100% OF OUR PAY CHECK" -End the Fed

to that I said.. Relax Dr. R0n Paul.. there was n0 public school, fire department, police department, public libraries, social security and 0ther things people need.

End the fed peep: look up when we had fire department ... there have been fire departments since the Romans ... Fuck social security ... Learn how to save yourself ,,, I don't need the government budgeting my retirement ... There were public schools ,,, look it up ... Libraries too ... And we had a bad ass navy and army ... your trippin ..

I'm not defending "the fed". Nor do I believe the way things are now are fine and that they "work". I am against this R0n Paul Libertarianism though. We can't possibly compare things to the early 1900's. and expect to just go back to them. It's not that simple

Yes we can ... I'm down to grow my own food ,,, supply my own energy and power ... People haven't evolved that much ... People still worship Jesus ,,, lust for money and power ... we still have bombs and guns ... they only difference is the internet ...

[Terminator X]

Not sure what you are trying to argue, but...as always, this Ron Paul type of libertarianism does nothing to bridge the gap between rich and poor and, in fact, would only serve to widen it. Yes, you would keep 100% of your paycheck (presumably cashed into gold or silver doubloons), but only those with the ability to pay for what would be strictly privately-owned, for-profit services, such as fire departments, health insurance, road construction, trash removal, etc. would benefit or have access. Also, corporations would be able to operate with reckless abandon. Their assertation that the "rich" would help the "poor" through some kind of Randian charity fantasy is completely asinine and has been proven throughout history to be a fallacy.

They once again try, and fail, to incorporate libertarian/anarchist ideals into a capitalist world order, which is impossible.

[ArrowLance]

Yes we can ... I'm down to grow my own food ,,, supply my own energy and power ... People haven't evolved that much ... People still worship Jesus ,,, lust for money and power ... we still have bombs and guns ... they only difference is the internet ...

I think this statement is ridiculous enough that no debate is needed. Any reasonable person will see that this man is batshit crazy and ignore him.

[ckaihatsu]

You've *already* lost the confrontation if you find yourself arguing within the terms provided by your adversary.

I'm dubious of the scholastic / historical approach to begin with, anyway. It would be better to stick to *class*-based arguments, since a class-based approach will easily show that their line is just a fancy, different kind of reformism -- we shouldn't legitimize wage-labor when we know that that system of compensation robs all workers of the labor value of their work, every hour of the day.

You could add that, with a worker-controlled economy and society, workers would have *more* of an interest in providing civil services since it would be *theirs* / ours, not separated *in the least* from those being served, as is currently the case through the medium of abstracted monetary valuations of capital and its ownership.

Since the defenders of the status quo, and/or reformists, have no new ideas on a way forward (by definition), they can only go *backwards* in their conceptions of what society could possibly look like. Their weak vision suffers from a lack of innovation, thus they try to fall back on the 'homesteader' / land-speculator ideal of the early U.S. nation.

Their line enjoys some resonance since much of the current real estate property base of the U.S. is descended from that land-speculator "lineage", but most people *don't* own private property or their own homes, and so they are compelled to work to make ends meet.

Our politics is in support of the *majority* of the people of the world, and we don't see any need to cater to *any* privilege in the least, even relatively modest small-scale privilege, when we know that a far better system is possible that would benefit people equally, across-the-board, according to our common *human* interests.

Note that the reformists' final desperate argument is to posture with an assertion of knowing the entire "human character", using traditional Christian religious culture as a basis -- the 'human nature' argument, in one of its many flavors.