[Janos]

Do us and yourself a favour and read about your political candidate the next time you decide to support him. And don't waltz in here and assume everyone is as ignorant as you are.

Thank you. Anything else?

Frankly sometimes I have to wonder how much of Ron Pauls popularity comes from a couple of youtube videos that are flying around where he simply appears to be able to make a strong argument against *something* or *someone* while many of his political opponents  fail at formulating any coherent or logical argument at all.

I.e. kinda like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVyhIGkusnI

So for some people it might be a matter of voting for the guy who "looks good while making an argument on youtube"... rather than the other guy(s) who are providing involuntary youtube comedy? lol.

Just google for Paul's proposed subsidies for shrimp industry. It's kinda weird.

Finally you will find Free Republic discussions about shrimp's, Paul's principles and 400 million dollars of earmarks. That's when I stopped. For now.

ed: Yes, I think most of the Paul's votes are more like protest vote against the establishment. Not very well-informed, though, seeing how many Paulites have little to no grasp of Paul's actual policies, his beliefs or even libertarism. I just read a diatribe by a Chicago school libertarian who said that Paul "libertarianism" has practically destroyed libertarianism as a serious political force in USA. Can't say I'm disappointed

[MP-Ryan]

I just read a diatribe by a Chicago school libertarian who said that Paul "libertarianism" has practically destroyed libertarianism as a serious political force in USA. Can't say I'm disappointed

I would be (if I were an American).  Libertarianism (or parts of it, it's a very loose philosophical coalition to begin with) is considerably more palatable than some of the policies the current GOP contenders are fielding.

Consider that libertarian politics is really the only political force in the US that bases a chunk of their policies on classic liberalism.  Given the choice between politics influenced by the likes of Mill and the principle of harm as a basis for law, or Santorum and his bat**** nutty ideas regarding contraception, abortion, and a host of other socially-conservative principles that a government really has no business in, I'll take the libertarian side, thanks.

[Janos]

I would be (if I were an American).  Libertarianism (or parts of it, it's a very loose philosophical coalition to begin with) is considerably more palatable than some of the policies the current GOP contenders are fielding.

It's also better than fascism, but it doesn't really make it a good political force. Sure, it's good and nice if you have enough capital to ensure the stability around you. For other people? Nyah.

Consider that libertarian politics is really the only political force in the US that bases a chunk of their policies on classic liberalism.

How so? It can be argued that every single capitalist nation which has as it's modus operandi a practical minimalization of state intervention has it's intellectual basis on liberalism. Even social democratic parties quite often quote classical liberal ideals. Adam Smith himself was for relatively strong state and market intervention to ensure the fairness and rule of the law. It's just what pretty much every single nation does these days. Sure, if we draw an arbitrary line somewhere between then and now, and call one part of it "classical" and the other one "modern"..

Libertarianism in America is more often than not anarcho-capitalism or some form of minarchism. American-style libertarianism, as preached by wonderful little institutions like Ludvig von Mises institute, usually rejects science and empirism, instead falling on nebulous wordplay and tautologies.

Given the choice between politics influenced by the likes of Mill and the principle of harm as a basis for law, or Santorum and his bat**** nutty ideas regarding contraception, abortion, and a host of other socially-conservative principles that a government really has no business in, I'll take the libertarian side, thanks.

I do not understand why you stage this question as a dilemma. It is not. One is not in any way obliged to choose between Santorum's and Paul's policies and ignore anything else.

[MP-Ryan]

It's also better than fascism, but it doesn't really make it a good political force. Sure, it's good and nice if you have enough capital to ensure the stability around you. For other people? Nyah.

The point was that a libertarian influence is a lot better than some of the other policies the GOP loves to field.

How so? It can be argued that every single capitalist nation which has as it's modus operandi a practical minimalization of state intervention has it's intellectual basis on liberalism. Even social democratic parties quite often quote classical liberal ideals. Adam Smith himself was for relatively strong state and market intervention to ensure the fairness and rule of the law. It's just what pretty much every single nation does these days. Sure, if we draw an arbitrary line somewhere between then and now, and call one part of it "classical" and the other one "modern"..

Libertarianism in America is more often than not anarcho-capitalism or some form of minarchism. American-style libertarianism, as preached by wonderful little institutions like Ludvig von Mises institute, usually rejects science and empirism, instead falling on nebulous wordplay and tautologies.

There are big chunks of classical liberalism missing from serious conversation in US politics.  Utilitarian discussion about the harm principle is a big one, and it's absence has propagated the foolishness surrounding the war on drugs and a variety of other criminalized "vice" offenses that plug up the courts and don't actually do anything to address real crime.  Sadly, the libertarian grassroots movement (e.g. where Paul actually gets his support among young people) is the only political force that seems to recognize this.

Also, if your last paragraph concerning American Libertarianism is true (and I'm not in a position to argue it either way), it would appear that the majority of those individuals don't actually know where libertarianism came from or what it's principles truly are.  Libertarianism is derived from classic liberalism, and empiricism and science are the very basis of those philosophical approaches.  Don't tar-and-feather the political philosophy as a whole for what a few ignorants in the US are trying to turn it into.

One is not in any way obliged to choose between Santorum's and Paul's policies and ignore anything else.

Wasn't saying you were.  I was just saying that I'd be much happier to see Santorum's bull**** exorcised from US politics before I'd like to see the libertarian spectrum eliminated.

[Janos]

The point was that a libertarian influence is a lot better than some of the other policies the GOP loves to field.

Fair point. However, I state that Republican right-wing machine has adopted many anarchocapitalist terms and uses them. The libertarianism as we speak of it is highly capitalist and rightist. It's also a rhetoric horse ridden by Republicans around the place. Ron Paul is just an example of it.

There are big chunks of classical liberalism missing from serious conversation in US politics.  Utilitarian discussion about the harm principle is a big one, and it's absence has propagated the foolishness surrounding the war on drugs and a variety of other criminalized "vice" offenses that plug up the courts and don't actually do anything to address real crime.  Sadly, the libertarian grassroots movement (e.g. where Paul actually gets his support among young people) is the only political force that seems to recognize this.

That is also correct. However, one has to realize that discussion of crime, victims and especially marijuana is widespread among the splintered left of USA, and the US political discussion is heavily skewed to right when compared to other relatively similar nations.

For example: less regulation, more military intervention. Less governmental interference, especially when it comes to bussiness - however, laws based on subjective morality are a-ok. The republican and partially democratic lines are both completely insane. However, they are the only two mainstream political narratives that have any float. Libertarianism as I spoke of it is just an anarcho-capitalist tool.

Also, if your last paragraph concerning American Libertarianism is true (and I'm not in a position to argue it either way), it would appear that the majority of those individuals don't actually know where libertarianism came from or what it's principles truly are.  Libertarianism is derived from classic liberalism, and empiricism and science are the very basis of those philosophical approaches.  Don't tar-and-feather the political philosophy as a whole for what a few ignorants in the US are trying to turn it into.

Isn't that a no true scotsman, though, when it comes to this discussion? Words have meanings, but a sociological phenomenon is described as much by actor than by dictionary definitions. As long as the topic of the discussion is Ron Paul and the context is US one, it is quite safe to discuss the exact phenomenon from US political point of view. mind you, the libertarian bent in the rest of the west is pretty much 1. defined by US political scene and 2. confined to internet.

It seems to me that libertarianism, as well as socialism, has extremely difficult to discuss, because the contexts and practices differ wildly depending on the discussion and its subject itself.

If we really want to discuss libertarianism as a wider political ideology instead of Paulite insanity, I would happily discuss it. However, if we were to engage in such a debate, I would like to know just what aspect of libertarianism we are discussing and what are the defining ideologies.

Unless it's praxeology. Then I just quote von Däniken.

[MP-Ryan]

I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything here; well, other than the demise of libertarianism in the US being a good thing, but I think we're both coming from the same perspective and just coming to different conclusions.

[Janos]

I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything here; well, other than the demise of libertarianism in the US being a good thing, but I think we're both coming from the same perspective and just coming to different conclusions.

Yes. I, personally, have little objection to the rarest of the rare - left-wing libertarianism. It is often very similar to modern socialist thinking and as such I have no personal objection with it. Many aspects of left libertarianism are 1:1 compatible to modern western socialist views. They both mix the idea of large personal freedom with powerful state that is directed to provide equal basic welfare or chance to benefit for it's people. I have to admit that I have little knowledge of how the two differ when it comes to natural monopolies. The discussion simply hasn't been relevant for the last... 12 years or so?

The political field of my country is such that anarcho-capitalists and other right-wing libertarians flock into... certain political parties, and the leftist, socially liberal and pro-personal freedom crowd flows into either the Green or the Left party. Left-wing libertarianism is non-existant as a personal identification in here (most of them are socialist in our context), and it is also very quiet on the internet. I would believe that in the USA most left-leaning libertarians would be associated with different off-the-map leftist political ideologies instead of democratic party. Paleolibertarians are Tea Party/Republican fodder.

The libertarianism I have most problem with is the weirdo austrian school. It is also the most prevalent school of libertarian thought in the internet, which is why I feel so strongly about it.

[Goober5000]

So you have absolutely no idea of the candidate you support! Congratulations! You have no basic knowledge of Ron Paul. Here, let me help you by digging out these random snippets about Ron Paul. BTW this is not even touching on many of his issues and I couldn't be bothered to dig up all of the racists crap from 1980s, but here you go. Let me quote DAT LIST for u

So your favored style of argument is to throw out a dozen mischaracterizations, malignments, and personal attacks, hoping that some of them will stick.  Congratulations, you've mastered the art of internet bluster.  You may be able to intimidate people in this manner, but you're not doing intellectual honesty any favors.

Fleet-footed negroes?

  A bad source, this one only has Newt Gingrich in it

Those newsletters were ghost-written.  Ron Paul didn't write them himself and every time they've been brought up during the campaign, he's disavowed the specific sentiments expressed in those quotes.  It's important to realize, though, that there are only about a dozen such quotes throughout the entire series of newsletters.  Every time the media roll out a different news article, they always recycle the same few quotes.

Crushing the separation of church and state?

Source

The phrase "separation of church and state" simply means that no state organization should have authority over any church function, and no church organization should have authority over any state function.  It emphatically does not mean that public practice of religion should be banned, nor that public officials should be free of religious persuasion.  Furthermore, your source is inadequate because you link to an editorial describing the cultural issues of such bad policy; you significantly didn't cite any proposed legislation intended to address the legal issues.

Ripping off constitutional protections and replacing them with pseudo-feudal loonie bull****?

Read the bill!

That's a Constitutional bill.  It even cites the sections of the Constitution which authorize its effects.  Please list the Constitutional protections you believe are removed by such a bill, and define the phrase "pseudo-feudal loonie bull****" to your satisfaction.

I find it highly curious that you react so strongly to a bill that 1) is Constitutional, 2) repeals no Constitutional protections, 3) abridge no personal or corporate rights, and 4) is only proposed, and not yet law.  Yet you have not said a word about the recent NDAA act, which materially abridges the Sixth Amendment, nor HR 347, which materially abridges the First Amendment, both of which have been signed into law, and both of which Ron Paul voted against.  I would appreciate any insight you would care to share into your method of prioritization here.

Voting against government to stop dealing with Janjaweed militias?

Read the results

There are any number of reasons he could have voted against this.  Considering that prior to this bill Americans already were prohibited by one degree of separation by engaging in business with Sudan, he may have thought that prohibiting two degrees of separation was overkill.  Or maybe he considered this a state issue and not a federal issue.  Or maybe he didn't like the idea of the USA submitting to the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

Posing with Stormfront co-founders?

Oh look

So?

Issuing own riders to bills, then voting "No" even though the bill is going to pass?

Seriously lolz

Paul's philosophy on this strategy has been well documented; a simple search should have satisfied your curiosity here.  But since you're lazy, I'll spell it out.  Paul doesn't want the bill to pass in principle, so he votes no.  But he asserts that if the bill does pass, his state and his district should receive benefit from it since their taxes contributed to its passage.  He is representing his district's financial interests as well as their Constitutional interests.

Moving back to gold currency?

A simple search "ron paul gold standard" would probably have helped you there

The gold standard is win.  It prevents the government from manipulating the value of the currency, which in turn makes it more difficult to screw up the economic cycle.

Hating on abortion?

Oh it's a bad source, it's only his own campaign site

Abortion is a pretty hateful practice.

Removal of state bureaus that, for example, make sure tens of thousands people don't die of poisoned milk?

All right, this was a mistake. Ron Paul does not specifically hate FDA. If only I could put my finger on why this article by Ron Paul still feels somewhat suspicious. What could it be?

That article is about dietary supplements, not milk.  And it's about preventing the FDA from censoring claims made on packaging, not removal of the FDA altogether.  Try finding a more relevant source.

Blocking governmental family planning?

Yeah.

What role, if any, do you propose government should play in family planning?

Capital punishment?

All right. Ron Paul only opposes federal death penalty. He's for states to decide it!

You neither cited a source nor offered your opinion on his position here, so...

Banning all public schooling?

This of course depends on the timeline. In 1990s Paul was still very much into banning public schooling. http://www.ronpaularchive.com/1998/02/national-testing-averted-but-education-woes-still-unresolved/ Now he only wants to remove federal control, public student loans, and eliminate Department of Education http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/10/17/ron-paul-1-trillion-cut-plan-targets-five-cabinet-departments

Your first source says nothing at all about banning public schooling; it specifically addresses only nationalized testing.  Your second source still says nothing about banning public schooling, only about returning schooling authority to state and local levels where it Constitutionally belongs.



In any case, your shotgun approach to arguing against Ron Paul completely misses the core, central reason for supporting his presidential campaign: his fiscal discipline.  Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate, of either party, who has presented a plan to cut spending.  The best any other presidential candidate -- of either political party -- can do is to propose a less-than-planned increase.  Which isn't a decrease at all.  I'm sure you realize that if this country continues on its unsustainable fiscal path, its debt will utterly overwhelm it.  When -- not if -- that happens, neither the neoconservative utopia of World Policeman nor the progressive utopia of Lifelong Welfare will be possible.

So let me ask you: which presidential candidate, of any major or minor party, do you support, and why?

Finally...

So, it has been proven that you [JCDNWarrior] do not know anything your candidate of choice actually votes for and believes. You can still act condescending towards someone who has dug up Ron Pauls antics from late 2011. You manage to blow hot air rhetoric and completely evade questions. You cannot pinpoint any single political position of Paul's you agree with, but you can pretty much claim me a liar.

Nothing of the sort has been proven, you haven't "dug up" any antics, and you are the one blowing hot air rhetoric.  I don't think you've had an opportunity to evade questions yet, but I'll see what your responses are to the ones I've posed here.

[Grizzly]

The gold standard is win.  It prevents the government from manipulating the value of the currency, which in turn makes it more difficult to screw up the economic cycle.

The gold standard is however impossible to apply, as there is simply not enough gold to go around .
On a more serious note: sticking to the gold standard is part of the reason why the Dutch stayed in the economic depression of the 30's so long. Sure, it might make it more easy to screw up the economic cycle, but it most likely also makes it more difficult to unscrew it.

Constitutional

Why is it that the constitution and everything related to it is written with a capital C?

[samiam]

Goober "women are baby factories" 5000 posting on GD? Wowzers! I'll just jump right in.

On a more serious note: sticking to the gold standard is part of the reason why the Dutch stayed in the economic depression of the 30's so long. Sure, it might make it more easy to screw up the economic cycle, but it most likely also makes it more difficult to unscrew it.

Not just the Dutch, but virtually every country on the interwar gold standard, like France and the USA, didn't start to recover until dropping the gold standard.

That's not necessarily even the main problem though. It was good for a time but nowadays developed countries trade more efficiently with floating exchange rates.

Abortion is a pretty hateful practice.

You can talk all you want about how much Jesus and babies don't like it, but the only non  way to talk about this issue is in terms of state and society, both of whom benefit from abortion, so that's that.

In any case, your shotgun approach to arguing against Ron Paul completely misses the core, central reason for supporting his presidential campaign: his fiscal discipline.  Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate, of either party, who has presented a plan to cut spending.

Which is the only good thing about Ron Paul, and all the other issues are secondary.

[Bob-san]

Goober "women are baby factories" 5000 posting on GD? Wowzers! I'll just jump right in.

On a more serious note: sticking to the gold standard is part of the reason why the Dutch stayed in the economic depression of the 30's so long. Sure, it might make it more easy to screw up the economic cycle, but it most likely also makes it more difficult to unscrew it.

Not just the Dutch, but virtually every country on the interwar gold standard, like France and the USA, didn't start to recover until dropping the gold standard.

That's not necessarily even the main problem though. It was good for a time but nowadays developed countries trade more efficiently with floating exchange rates.

Abortion is a pretty hateful practice.

You can talk all you want about how much Jesus and babies don't like it, but the only non  way to talk about this issue is in terms of state and society, both of whom benefit from abortion, so that's that.

In any case, your shotgun approach to arguing against Ron Paul completely misses the core, central reason for supporting his presidential campaign: his fiscal discipline.  Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate, of either party, who has presented a plan to cut spending.

Which is the only good thing about Ron Paul, and all the other issues are secondary.

You realize, there are other events at play than simply what currency standard is used? The point about a sound currency is to prevent inflation. Inflation is one way to spur growth--at least initially, the psychology was that you should save your money for another day. That began to massively change in the 1940s & 50s; personal debt became more accessible, consumerism went on the rise. There were still large portions of people that saved instead of spent. As consumerism ramped up, savings-based banking ramped down. Decades pass and now we're in an interesting conundrum--everyone is saving but inflation is taking its toll. Those who have money in the bank are still getting 25-50 basis points but admitted inflation is at least 190 bp.

My problem with inflation is that I'd do my best to catch a criminal who stole 1.9% of my income every year. If you stole $570 from me this year, I'd report you to the police and try to have you arrested. After all, you effectively stole that money from my pocket. The same goes for institution-drive inflation--I think they're criminals because they're unilaterally making my buying power decrease. Sure, I can buy as much beef as before (nevermind that I used to buy steak but now have to eat chuck), but that beef isn't as good.

Legalize a gold or silver-based alternative and I'll take my chances. Or just stop taxing investment vehicles like gold or silver--there's no reason there should be sales tax to buy money.

[samiam]

You realize, there are other events at play than simply what currency standard is used? The point about a sound currency is to prevent inflation. Inflation is one way to spur growth--at least initially, the psychology was that you should save your money for another day. That began to massively change in the 1940s & 50s; personal debt became more accessible, consumerism went on the rise.

Really, Bob-san? You should start a podcast. You sound like me from a past life.

There were still large portions of people that saved instead of spent. As consumerism ramped up, savings-based banking ramped down. Decades pass and now we're in an interesting conundrum--everyone is saving but inflation is taking its toll. Those who have money in the bank are still getting 25-50 basis points but admitted inflation is at least 190 bp.

Raising interest rates in the middle of a recession is not necessarily a good idea.

My problem with inflation is that I'd do my best to catch a criminal who stole 1.9% of my income every year. If you stole $570 from me this year, I'd report you to the police and try to have you arrested. After all, you effectively stole that money from my pocket. The same goes for institution-drive inflation--I think they're criminals because they're unilaterally making my buying power decrease. Sure, I can buy as much beef as before (nevermind that I used to buy steak but now have to eat chuck), but that beef isn't as good.

Inflation "back in the good old days" you're talking about (1900 to 1933, the last year of the GS) was about 1.5%. Gold can inflate too. Surprise!

Plus, gold has a lot of important nonmonetary use nowadays that it didn't have in the boondock era or even in 1973.

Legalize a gold or silver-based alternative and I'll take my chances. Or just stop taxing investment vehicles like gold or silver--there's no reason there should be sales tax to buy money.

You might be unemployed or see pay cuts, though, since there are other reasons why moderate inflation exists other than just for the sake of the central bank being evil.

[NGTM-1R]

Those newsletters were ghost-written.

Irrelevant. He affixed his name to them, rather prominently. He hired the people who wrote them. He took responsibility in other words.

If I were to allow an underling at work who I had charged to create a company newsletter to do this, I would be rightly fired along with them, and I wouldn't have even put my goddamn name in front of it.

[Bob-san]

You realize, there are other events at play than simply what currency standard is used? The point about a sound currency is to prevent inflation. Inflation is one way to spur growth--at least initially, the psychology was that you should save your money for another day. That began to massively change in the 1940s & 50s; personal debt became more accessible, consumerism went on the rise.

Really, Bob-san? You should start a podcast. You sound like me from a past life.

Raising interest rates in the middle of a recession is not necessarily a good idea.

Actually, it is a good idea. Low interest rates set a lower bar for ROI. Instead of building where it is beneficial, instead things are built where it is easy. What good is coming out of a recession if a company will have another crash 2 years later when shorter-term debt comes due? In a free market, interest rates reflect the risks. If a company is on unsteady footing, it's a clear message that they need to stop borrowing and start paying off debt instead. They should only expand if it accelerates their ability to repay.

A company with a B rating COULD issue new bonds at 3%; that's territory usually only for high-rated companies (AA & AAA with neutral/positive outlooks). However, if their peers with B ratings issue debt at 6%, that means that the company cannot sell their new debt at face value--they've gotta discount the bond. That means that, instead of being able to sell new debt for $100.00, they can only sell it for $77.68.

Inflation "back in the good old days" you're talking about (1900 to 1933, the last year of the GS) was about 1.5%. Gold can inflate too. Surprise!

Plus, gold has a lot of important nonmonetary use nowadays that it didn't have in the boondock era or even in 1973.

Anything can inflate--though gold inflation is more reflecting new influxes of gold and politicians that keep a fractional gold reserve when issuing paper currencies. By changing the ratios or the currency itself, they can manipulate it. It's based on confidence as well.

Gold isn't nearly as important as you think in economic production. The vast majority of gold is kept for reserves, investments, and jewelery. A relatively small part is used in industrial applications--usually to plate exposed metal to prevent corrosion or as a style accent. Nickel is being used in similar applications, and bare copper is fine for non-exposed surfaces. Paint is also cheaper to use when plating iron or steel. I could fish out the exact numbers but, honestly, I'm too lazy right now.

Oh, and there was actually deflation--since the supply of gold increased slower than Western populations grew.

The nice thing about using gold coins is that there is no reserved--the intrinsic value is present. You cannot reclaim the gold in coins without literally destroying its face value.

You might be unemployed or see pay cuts, though, since there are other reasons why moderate inflation exists other than just for the sake of the central bank being evil.

You know, I'd much rather index my salary or wages to the price of gold. At least then, if politicians are stupid, I don't lose portions of its value. We're already unemployed, we've already seen pay cuts. Inflation exists--the point of order is to try and stop inflation or even cause deflation. That way, the savers can actually save and the spenders can still spend. Easy credit will be all but wiped out.

[Janos]

So your favored style of argument is to throw out a dozen mischaracterizations, malignments, and personal attacks, hoping that some of them will stick.  Congratulations, you've mastered the art of internet bluster.  You may be able to intimidate people in this manner, but you're not doing intellectual honesty any favors.

Oh! How dandy. Of course, would you have actually read the thread, it was simply listing sources for my previous statements, which were questioned by a poster JSDNwarrior. The statements, as I presented them, were a series of questions directed at poster Sushi.

I also presented at least some kind of sources in support of my view.

Those newsletters were ghost-written.  Ron Paul didn't write them himself and every time they've been brought up during the campaign, he's disavowed the specific sentiments expressed in those quotes.  It's important to realize, though, that there are only about a dozen such quotes throughout the entire series of newsletters.  Every time the media roll out a different news article, they always recycle the same few quotes.

Ron Paul ok'd the entire newsletter thing. They were published under his name from 1984 onwards. The fleet-footed negroes stuff was published in 1992. The newsletters - which were published under his name - contained tidbits that hinted that even if Paul himself didn't write them, then someone played the part pretty well: referring to Paul's occupation, history and living place in first person.

So either
1. he wrote that stupid stuff
2. he let stupid stuff be written and published under his name and persona for 14 years and didn't do anything about it.

yeah, sure. ghostwritten. I see that this works towards the intellectual honesty you were so worried about.

The phrase "separation of church and state" simply means that no state organization should have authority over any church function, and no church organization should have authority over any state function.  It emphatically does not mean that public practice of religion should be banned, nor that public officials should be free of religious persuasion.  Furthermore, your source is inadequate because you link to an editorial describing the cultural issues of such bad policy; you significantly didn't cite any proposed legislation intended to address the legal issues.

The editorial was written by him. You are being purposefully obtuse if you claim an ideological editorial does not describe writer's personal opinions. What was that about intellectual honesty?

That's a Constitutional bill.  It even cites the sections of the Constitution which authorize its effects.  Please list the Constitutional protections you believe are removed by such a bill, and define the phrase "pseudo-feudal loonie bull****" to your satisfaction.

Lawrence vs. Texas. If you remove jurisdiction of federal rights from a federal court that is designed to oversee the protection of rights..

Yet you have not said a word about the recent NDAA act, which materially abridges the Sixth Amendment, nor HR 347, which materially abridges the First Amendment, both of which have been signed into law, and both of which Ron Paul voted against.  I would appreciate any insight you would care to share into your method of prioritization here.

I do not know or care about NDAA act, I have not brought it up and I am not going to argue against something in your snide attempt of trying to look "neutral". You have not denounced nazism, Monsanto and UFOs in this post, therefore I find your priorization interesting. If you wish to discuss the NDAA you are free to do so. But I have not talked about it. This is a blatant attempt of derailing the thread and trying to argue in bad faith. Your intellectual honesty is indeed very interesting.

There are any number of reasons he could have voted against this.  Considering that prior to this bill Americans already were prohibited by one degree of separation by engaging in business with Sudan, he may have thought that prohibiting two degrees of separation was overkill.  Or maybe he considered this a state issue and not a federal issue.  Or maybe he didn't like the idea of the USA submitting to the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

Maybe he loves Janjaweed militas? Isn't that a valid maybe as well?
The legislation tried do divest US governmental funds from Khartoum. How is this at odds with anti-interventionism or libertarianism? Paul voted against military intervention, but he also voted against trade option. So what's his option - reflexively voting "no"?

So?

Are you serious?

Paul's philosophy on this strategy has been well documented; a simple search should have satisfied your curiosity here.  But since you're lazy, I'll spell it out.  Paul doesn't want the bill to pass in principle, so he votes no.  But he asserts that if the bill does pass, his state and his district should receive benefit from it since their taxes contributed to its passage.  He is representing his district's financial interests as well as their Constitutional interests.

I knew that. So he can get money and say that he has technically never voted for a rider? How does knowing that make that kind of behaviour... wait, there was a key word here I directed this at... yes, principled?

Principled. How would you measure principled politican in an intellectually honest way?

The gold standard is win.  It prevents the government from manipulating the value of the currency, which in turn makes it more difficult to screw up the economic cycle.

Many other people are arguing against this.

Abortion is a pretty hateful practice.

Counterpoint: No it's not!

I would have thought that when one is discussing sweeping legislation, then intellectually honest approach would be not using personal viewpoints as a one-liner counterpoints.

What role, if any, do you propose government should play in family planning?

Help for those in need.

You neither cited a source nor offered your opinion on his position here, so...

Yes.

Your first source says nothing at all about banning public schooling; it specifically addresses only nationalized testing.  Your second source still says nothing about banning public schooling, only about returning schooling authority to state and local levels where it Constitutionally belongs.

Dismantling DoE? Saying federal level has no power in schooling?

I am simply going to attach my original reply here:

This of course depends on the timeline. In 1990s Paul was still very much into banning public schooling. http://www.ronpaularchive.com/1998/02/national-testing-averted-but-education-woes-still-unresolved/ Now he only wants to remove federal control, public student loans, and eliminate Department of Education http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/10/17/ron-paul-1-trillion-cut-plan-targets-five-cabinet-departments

I stated that Ron Paul wants to ban publich schooling. Then I amended this fact.

Earlier in this reply you commented how a "simple google" would have helped me to understand something (which I already knew, but didn't think was important). I am now googling the fact. Paul opposed the public schooling in 1980s. He no longer does it. He does not want the federal level have anything to do with it. He wishes to dismantle ED.

In any case, your shotgun approach to arguing against Ron Paul completely misses the core, central reason for supporting his presidential campaign: his fiscal discipline.  Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate, of either party, who has presented a plan to cut spending.  The best any other presidential candidate -- of either political party -- can do is to propose a less-than-planned increase.  Which isn't a decrease at all.  I'm sure you realize that if this country continues on its unsustainable fiscal path, its debt will utterly overwhelm it.  When -- not if -- that happens, neither the neoconservative utopia of World Policeman nor the progressive utopia of Lifelong Welfare will be possible.

Talk of "unsustainable fiscal path" is weasely in itself. We can look at trade deficit, or percentage of federal spending as a percentage of overall GDP, or whatever.

So let me ask you: which presidential candidate, of any major or minor party, do you support, and why?

None. I am not american.

Nothing of the sort has been proven, you haven't "dug up" any antics, and you are the one blowing hot air rhetoric.  I don't think you've had an opportunity to evade questions yet, but I'll see what your responses are to the ones I've posed here.

Oh, the glorious guardian angel Goober. I bet Sushi and JCDNWarrior are exhausted for you to be here to explain why they support a candidate. I ask for clarification. I get none. Then you appear here with your cowardly lines of "intellectual honesty", all the while completely missing the point.

Sure, I can answer you. I can even admit when I am wrong. It would be intellectually honest to let other people answer to questions I asked them.

When a politician runs on the "principled" platform, it is questionable if he does not practice as he preaches, but instead tries to ride a moral high horse while practicing the very thing the critiques. When a politician tries to run a strict constitutionalist platform, it is questionable if he wants to remove constitutional protections in form of Supreme Court jurisdiction re: sexual rights. When a politician runs a strict constitutional platform it is interesting, if he opposes one amendment (birthrigt citizenship) and wants to amend the constitution to change that particular amendment into something completely else.  When a politician runs a libertarian platform it is questionable if he votes against a libertarian solution to an international problem. When politician runs an anti-federal state rights line, it is interesting he is willing to sponsor a federal ban on certain practices, while willing to remove other practices from federal jurisdiction.

After all, intellectual honesty.

[samiam]

I don't know about all that, but the PCE is currently about 2% in accordance with the Taylor Rule. So if the Fed's been doing fine before I don't think it's a good idea to change. I don't know if you want to get into, like, serious economics and monetary theory or anything. But empirically, demand-side deflation is bad.

Thanks for telling me how bonds work, but that doesn't change much. Fine tuning interest rates to try to get however many companies to default is a really crude way to go about things, assuming more companies need to be defaulting.

Doesn't matter if 10% of gold goes to computing, it'll still increase the price of IT capital not to mention inflate the current ridiculous gold bubble if people start trading more dollars for it.

Oh, and there was actually deflation-

No it didn't. At least not for several decades. Are you trying to say I just made that up? Go look it up, on Measuringworth or something. There were periods of inflation, deflation, and a whole lot of volatility, since commodities are always volatile and a terrible thing to peg a currency to compared to the dollar currently. But around 1900 the cyanide process was invented to process low grade ore and gold began inflating. So it really depends.

-since the supply of gold increased slower than Western populations grew.

Wat? Did you just disprove reality theoretically?

Gold convertibility doesn't directly prevent the government from running a deficit. It may result in severe inflation if the deficit is large enough. But that's basically what the US was doing to finance the Vietnam War and Medicaid, and the GS provided a big windfall to America because of how highly overvalued the dollar was under Bretton Woods. The US could pretty much print money and spend as much as it wanted, since the dollar remained pegged to gold and foreign currencies were pegged to the dollar. Really unfair system to the rest of the world, and De Gaulle was very butthurt over it. But it didn't reduce government spending so much as pass on the cost to other people.

You know, I'd much rather index my salary or wages to the price of gold. At least then, if politicians are stupid, I don't lose portions of its value. We're already unemployed, we've already seen pay cuts. Inflation exists--the point of order is to try and stop inflation or even cause deflation.

Whatever floats your boat dude, but everyone else wants to live in an economy, see economic growth, hold their job and have real wage growth rather than a monetary system that reduced capacity utilization and investment, and contributed to worse depressions than we have now. But go ask your boss, it would be up to them. Just probably not a good idea until a few years from now since gold's about to loose 99% of its value when Glen Beck sneezes.

Whether or not it's a good idea to index your wages to gold depends on where exactly we are in the business cycle, and your employer may or may not be willing to play speculation games with you.

That way, the savers can actually save and the spenders can still spend. Easy credit will be all but wiped out.

That's just your opinion, man. And it doesn't make any sense either since some of the largest credit bubbles in history happened under the GS.

[Bob-san]

I don't know about all that, but the PCE is currently about 2% in accordance with the Taylor Rule. So if the Fed's been doing fine before I don't think it's a good idea to change. I don't know if you want to get into, like, serious economics and monetary theory or anything. But empirically, demand-side deflation is bad.

Inflationary indexes usually fail to account for luxury as well as durability. Yes, you can substitute beef chuck for steak, but beef chuck is not steak and cannot become steak. That's not true of other items--the candy bar metaphor comes into play often. Originally, you can afford 2 peanut-butter and chocolate bars & 2 pure chocolate bars but, because peanuts are more expensive, now you can buy one peanut-butter bar and three chocolate bars. That's fine and good if you prefer chocolate bars. But what happens at the end of that scale? If instead of Lindt, you're now buying Hershey's. Instead of Hershey's, you're now buying house-brand. Where do you go from house-brand? If you're already shopping at the discount store, where do you go from there?

Thanks for telling me how bonds work, but that doesn't change much. Fine tuning interest rates to try to get however many companies to default is a really crude way to go about things, assuming more companies need to be defaulting.

Actually, it does. Bonds are so stable because of perceptions. But it's those perceptions that affect how you can borrow. Risk and reward doesn't span 10% of your investment--and you shouldn't risk your money for no return. You should also not become desperate, chasing whatever return is possible regardless of risk. You pull back your money and regroup; you plan a way out of your conundrum. Charging forward with more reckless abandon makes great headlines and could make a few people rich, but unprincipled action is a result of grasping for a silver bullet--for a miracle cure to your problems. So yes, those companies that do that SHOULD fail, and they should fail often. Meanwhile, the employees have a choice--stick around and accept their paychecks or jump ship, either to unemployment or another company.

Doesn't matter if 10% of gold goes to computing, it'll still increase the price of IT capital not to mention inflate the current ridiculous gold bubble if people start trading more dollars for it.

Gold is not unique in its uses. Besides, it becomes a balance between economic benefits--storing it as wealth versus using it in industry. It means that cheap electronics may not have gold-plated contacts--which is fine by me since you get what you pay for. The gold bubble is a symptom of distrust for fiat currencies--and it's not really a bubble either--maybe it's overpriced, but when all is said and done, you don't owe a debt obligation. Bubbles are much more results of easy credit in an industry--things look great until they pop. Gold is the opposite--you don't take a mortgage against gold. And further, a futures contract means that you're buying fine gold for delivery at a specific time. You own that gold. If you borrowed money to purchase it, then its on personal credit as your investments belong to yourself. That's also very much unlike the last catastrophic bubble (real estate).

No it didn't. At least not for several decades. Are you trying to say I just made that up? Go look it up, on Measuringworth or something. There were periods of inflation, deflation, and a whole lot of volatility, since commodities are always volatile and a terrible thing to peg a currency to compared to the dollar currently. But around 1900 the cyanide process was invented to process low grade ore and gold began inflating. So it really depends.

Inflation always depends on what you peg it to. You've got to peg it to something. At least through 1970, foreign banks could exchange FRNs for gold. That limited inflation (since gold was the only thing fixed). Unfortunately, since everything is constantly changing, you must select something to index.

-since the supply of gold increased slower than Western populations grew.

http://www.dani2989.com/gold/productiondorcyclesgb26072004.htm
4577 metric tons accounts for about 2.5% of the total mine and refine gold. That means that there's about 183,000 metric tons mined. 400-1500 metric tons were mined every year from 1904 until 1970. Gold mining's growth rate was greatly in excess of the real population growth. Using the USA as an example, there were 76M people here in 1900. By 1970, that number grew to 205M. 70 years, 129M people. That's an average annual growth rate of 1.43% though is biased towards increased immigration. Without the exact production numbers per year, I can observe that the 1500 metric ton production in 1970 accounted for approximately a 1.15% increase in the gold supply. (Assuming there was about 132K metric tons by 1970.) That year, there was a 1.17% increase in population. Years prior had much lower gold productions.

Gold convertibility doesn't directly prevent the government from running a deficit. It may result in severe inflation if the deficit is large enough. But that's basically what the US was doing to finance the Vietnam War and Medicaid, and the GS provided a big windfall to America because of how highly overvalued the dollar was under Bretton Woods. The US could pretty much print money and spend as much as it wanted, since the dollar remained pegged to gold and foreign currencies were pegged to the dollar. Really unfair system to the rest of the world, and De Gaulle was very butthurt over it. But it didn't reduce government spending so much as pass on the cost to other people.

You know, I'd much rather index my salary or wages to the price of gold. At least then, if politicians are stupid, I don't lose portions of its value. We're already unemployed, we've already seen pay cuts. Inflation exists--the point of order is to try and stop inflation or even cause deflation.

Whatever floats your boat dude, but everyone else wants to live in an economy, see economic growth, hold their job and have real wage growth rather than a monetary system that reduced capacity utilization and investment, and contributed to worse depressions that we have now. But go ask your boss, it would be up to them. Just probably not a good idea until a few years from now since gold's about to loose 99% of its value when Glen Beck sneezes.

No, it doesn't. But gold convertibility ensures that there are forces other than a central bank that can influence our monetary policy. Further, some inflation in price is simply decreased supplies. After all, Florida can only grow so many oranges. The problem by 1970 was we were already a fiat currency--only foreign banks could claim gold. Right now, the problem is no better--without gold, we've been able to finance Medicare, Medicaid, Part D, Obamacare, Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other military excursions. And further, the materials used in war are materials effectively wasted--you need steel for buildings as well as tanks and gasoline for airplanes as well as transport trucks.

Most gold bugs don't listen to Glen Beck--some might, but not all. Gold's position is so shining at the moment because everything else is so crappy. It's also slowly deflating--not violently like real estate. The reason is because you can hold gold and know it'll hold its value in 30 years.

Whether or not it's a good idea to index your wages to gold depends on where exactly we are in the business cycle, and your employer may or may not be willing to play speculation games with you.

Oh, I agree. Wouldn't you have loved to index at $200/oz? When I went to college, gold was $672/oz. By the time I graduated, it was >$1600/oz. I would have loved to have taken out my loans for subsequent quarters and invested them in gold. They'd have gone twice or thrice as long. Or I could have used the profits and erased the loans entirely. Or I could have bought a car or actually fed myself 3 square meals a day.

That way, the savers can actually save and the spenders can still spend. Easy credit will be all but wiped out.

That's just your opinion, man. And it doesn't make any sense either since some of the largest credit bubbles in history happened under the GS.

And, afterwards, those that saved were in the same position as before. Easy credit has accelerated since we left any semblance of a GS. Part technology, part speculation--all harmful to life-long savers.

[Sushi]

Oh! How dandy. Of course, would you have actually read the thread, it was simply listing sources for my previous statements, which were questioned by a poster JSDNwarrior. The statements, as I presented them, were a series of questions directed at poster Sushi.

Oh, the glorious guardian angel Goober. I bet Sushi and JCDNWarrior are exhausted for you to be here to explain why they support a candidate.

I haven't responded to you for a very simple reason. You are clearly picking a fight. I refuse to be goaded into one. Have a nice day.

[samiam]

Inflationary indexes usually fail to account for luxury as well as durability. Yes, you can substitute beef chuck for steak, but beef chuck is not steak and cannot become steak. That's not true of other items--the candy bar metaphor comes into play often. Originally, you can afford 2 peanut-butter and chocolate bars & 2 pure chocolate bars but, because peanuts are more expensive, now you can buy one peanut-butter bar and three chocolate bars. That's fine and good if you prefer chocolate bars. But what happens at the end of that scale? If instead of Lindt, you're now buying Hershey's. Instead of Hershey's, you're now buying house-brand. Where do you go from house-brand? If you're already shopping at the discount store, where do you go from there?

I don't know, but I guess that settles things somehow.

Changing monetary policy because some guy on the internet thinks not enough businesses are failing would destroy the Fed's credibility to stick to inflation targeting and create a whole bunch of volatility in the economy. So that's one reason I don't like your idea.

At least through 1970, foreign banks could exchange FRNs for gold. That limited inflation (since gold was the only thing fixed).

Eh. Inflation was pretty high in the 60s. The GS did very little to check monetary policy and resulted in inflation elsewhere with everyone being pegged to the dollar. When the US ran out of gold reserves, it just dropped the gold standard. So so much for that.

But the Fed is a lot better about those things now than it was. Taking inflation any lower would be a bad thing, ala Japan.

(Assuming there was about 132K metric tons by 1970.) That year, there was a 1.17% increase in population. Years prior had much lower gold productions.

That's really not how things work. But whatever. Look up 20th century price indexes. Or not.

No, it doesn't. But gold convertibility ensures that there are forces other than a central bank that can influence our monetary policy.

Terrible idea. Explain why, exactly, the Fed is doing something wrong and we can go from there.

Further, some inflation in price is simply decreased supplies. After all, Florida can only grow so many oranges. The problem by 1970 was we were already a fiat currency--only foreign banks could claim gold. Right now, the problem is no better--without gold, we've been able to finance Medicare, Medicaid, Part D, Obamacare, Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other military excursions. And further, the materials used in war are materials effectively wasted--you need steel for buildings as well as tanks and gasoline for airplanes as well as transport trucks.

That's an entirely legitimate point. All those healthcare excursions would be a lot harder to get tax increases for under gold. But there are still so many other problems with the idea that I don't think it would be worth it today.

Most gold bugs don't listen to Glen Beck--some might, but not all. Gold's position is so shining at the moment because everything else is so crappy. It's also slowly deflating--not violently like real estate. The reason is because you can hold gold and know it'll hold its value in 30 years.

Gold will not be worth $1,700 2012USD in 30 years- if it is, Glenn Beck will make us tremble in his wake. Yes, I get the idea. But many interest bearing dollar investments tend to do better over the long term anyway.

The long term real return on gold is about zero; it's a store of value, not an investment, and a really pain in the ass one to carry around with you and buy things at Wal Mart with, at that.

Also gold isn't really deflating, it's ridiculously volatile and if anything was up last year. And no one has ever proposed the Real Estate Standard. But I need to stop talking.

Oh, I agree. Wouldn't you have loved to index at $200/oz? When I went to college, gold was $672/oz. By the time I graduated, it was >$1600/oz. I would have loved to have taken out my loans for subsequent quarters and invested them in gold. They'd have gone twice or thrice as long. Or I could have used the profits and erased the loans entirely. Or I could have bought a car or actually fed myself 3 square meals a day.

Bah, get an economics degree and you'll have two cars when you graduate.

And, afterwards, those that saved were in the same position as before. Easy credit has accelerated since we left any semblance of a GS. Part technology, part speculation--all harmful to life-long savers.

Actually, the credit cycle is about the same or slightly better than it was. Do you like reading academic papers? I could give you one.

[MP-Ryan]

TIME OUT!

Line-by-line replies are painful.  We all know it.  We all hate doing it.  It sucks to read and ensures new people are unlikely to contribute.  So let's stop it!