Educate me on Ron Paul's theories

[Dabljuh]

I came accross Ron Paul's maybe a year or so ago. As I do have an economics background and my specialty being monetary systems, I could assess what he says. Since I'm not living in the US, (you may have noticed I write with an accent) I however know fairly little actually about him.

With this thread, I'm going to give ronpaulites the chance to convince me with good arguments that anything Ron Paul says has merit.

My current positions:

Basically I consider fractional reserve banking to be harmless or beneficial to society as it creates localized flexibility on the localized money supply, acting as a buffer if in a subsection (a town, or a small grid of interlocked market participants) money supply threatens to run dry.

Gold backing is one of the worst ideas ever. There's not only simply not enough gold to keep even a small country's economy fueled, and gold has other properties that make it highly undesireable with the common good in mind.

Ultimately I think he's at the right ball park - There's some issues with the way the central banks handle their currencies that can only be resolved on the national scale. But attacking fractional reserve and fiat money aren't.

Since I love conspiracy theories, I figure he was sent by "the man" to keep gullible people who want a more just economic system barking up the wrong tree. But then again, many people may really be that dumb.

[Oliver]

I never heard that Dr. Paul is considering 100% "Goldbacking". His idea
is to support the Dollar via gold reserves. I'm pretty sure that he knows
that full gold backing would be catastrophically inflexible.

Anyway - my geo-economical knowledge is a catastrophe as well. :D
You might ask at Ronpaulforums.com, they discuss this all the time
with noobs.

Oh, and your accent is horrible :D - where are you from?

[Mister Agenda]

My understanding is that his plan is to not tax exchanges of commodities like precious metals (I'm not sure it is limited to precious metals) as purchases in and of themselves so they can be used as a medium of exchange by those who want to. The idea is that if inflation gets out of hand, more people would turn to commodities as a medium of exchange, providing an incentive for the central bank to keep inflation under tighter control in the face of competition against federal currency (under inflation, the demand for reserve notes would decrease). It would also work against deflation, as people would prefer bank-issued currency under that circumstance and the demand for those notes would increase. Although economics is a strong interest of mine, I'm not an economist, so with that caveat, in my opinion, allowing commodity exchange in this fashion would be a stabilizing influence on US currency without paralyzing it. For example, the currency supply should still be able to increase in proportion to economic growth.

[Kerberos]

My understanding is that his plan is to not tax exchanges of commodities like precious metals (I'm not sure it is limited to precious metals) as purchases in and of themselves so they can be used as a medium of exchange by those who want to. The idea is that if inflation gets out of hand, more people would turn to commodities as a medium of exchange, providing an incentive for the central bank to keep inflation under tighter control in the face of competition against federal currency (under inflation, the demand for reserve notes would decrease). It would also work against deflation, as people would prefer bank-issued currency under that circumstance and the demand for those notes would increase. Although economics is a strong interest of mine, I'm not an economist, so with that caveat, in my opinion, allowing commodity exchange in this fashion would be a stabilizing influence on US currency without paralyzing it. For example, the currency supply should still be able to increase in proportion to economic growth.

Actually it seems to me that this would destabilize the currency. Under inflation the demand for reserve notes would decrease meaning the price would decrease, meaning further inflation. Under deflation the demand would increase meaning the price of money goes up, and that means more deflation.

[corplinx]

Ron Paul believes that your state should be making laws about things like abortions and its not in the scope of the federal government. So he supports freedom for everyone except people in the deep southern states and Utah.

[Oliver]

Ron Paul believes that your state should be making laws about things like abortions and its not in the scope of the federal government. So he supports freedom for everyone except people in the deep southern states and Utah.


No, he supports Freedom and Democracy based on the majority
of opinion. To say that the federal legislation is above the local
one is less democratic than Ron Pauls stance - thanks to the
differing opinions all across the states.

(Which isn't surprising to me at all in such a large country as
the United States)

[corplinx]

No, he supports Freedom and Democracy based on the majority
of opinion.

Ron Paul supports mob rule?

[Oliver]

Ron Paul supports mob rule?


The majority of Americans are a "mob"? ... :D

[billydkid]

As opposed to virtually every other candidate Ron Paul has written in great detail about nearly every one of his political and economic position and takes some trouble to explain why he holds the views he does. These documents are not difficult to locate. Read them, understand them and then disagree.

[Checkmite]

It's worth dwelving into Ron Paul's views regarding church/state seperation. He fully believes there is no such thing.

[Dabljuh]

Well, basically dropping the currency monopoly is nothing bad by itself. It may increase inflation of the state's currency slightly, as the demand for that currency dropped, but that's about it. However something like that wouldn't save the dollar.

But what's this nonsense about fractional reserve banking and the secret rule of the jewish bankers?

[Oliver]

As opposed to virtually every other candidate Ron Paul has written in great detail about nearly every one of his political and economic position and takes some trouble to explain why he holds the views he does. These documents are not difficult to locate. Read them, understand them and then disagree.


So which other Candidate is talking about the economy as
well despite Paul? Who is your favorite to solve those problems?

[Oliver]

It's worth dwelving into Ron Paul's views regarding church/state seperation. He fully believes there is no such thing.


Source? (No Alex Jones/Fox/WWN-like agenda-sites, please!)

[pipelineaudio]

Ron Paul believes that your state should be making laws about things like abortions and its not in the scope of the federal government. So he supports freedom for everyone except people in the deep southern states and Utah.

The thing is, he MIGHT be right. If he's really going strictly constitutionalist, it MAY be a state's right. For damn sure its position as a matter of "privacy" leaves it open to attack anyhow. I would rather see someone try to move it to a first amendment issue, then it could truly be a federal issue with federal protection.

I was pretty dismayed when I actually read into it that I had been attacking Ron Paul for a position he didn't actually, hold, just one the media had assigned to him

[Oliver]

The thing is, he MIGHT be right. If he's really going strictly constitutionalist, it MAY be a state's right. For damn sure its position as a matter of "privacy" leaves it open to attack anyhow. I would rather see someone try to move it to a first amendment issue, then it could truly be a federal issue with federal protection.

I was pretty dismayed when I actually read into it that I had been attacking Ron Paul for a position he didn't actually, hold, just one the media had assigned to him


To me it's quite funny to see people arguing against the constitution.
Especially the ones ignoring the fact that it's is the basic law of the
United States by declaring it as an "irrelevant, old piece of paper"... :D

[Nathyn]

I came accross Ron Paul's maybe a year or so ago. As I do have an economics background and my specialty being monetary systems, I could assess what he says. Since I'm not living in the US, (you may have noticed I write with an accent) I however know fairly little actually about him.

With this thread, I'm going to give ronpaulites the chance to convince me with good arguments that anything Ron Paul says has merit.

My current positions:

Basically I consider fractional reserve banking to be harmless or beneficial to society as it creates localized flexibility on the localized money supply, acting as a buffer if in a subsection (a town, or a small grid of interlocked market participants) money supply threatens to run dry.

Gold backing is one of the worst ideas ever. There's not only simply not enough gold to keep even a small country's economy fueled, and gold has other properties that make it highly undesireable with the common good in mind.

Ultimately I think he's at the right ball park - There's some issues with the way the central banks handle their currencies that can only be resolved on the national scale. But attacking fractional reserve and fiat money aren't.

Since I love conspiracy theories, I figure he was sent by "the man" to keep gullible people who want a more just economic system barking up the wrong tree. But then again, many people may really be that dumb.
Dabljuh, I'm surprised to hear you ask this question.

Ron Paul has stated in the past that he agrees with Austrian economics, as taught by Mises and Rothbard. The Austrians don't necessarily support a gold standard, but tend to support competing monetary systems established by the private sector (pretty crazy, huh?). They are sympathetic to the gold standard, though, and support it over fiat, because they believe it would limit the ability of government to act.

More on Austrian economics:

"Austrian economics," isn't seen by modern economists as a legitimate school of economics, but as a historical school of economics that has modern heterodox adherents, the same as with Marxism.

Austrian economics can be summarized: The only statements that can be made about economic behavior must be said about individuals because only individuals engage in economic behavior (methodological individualism). However, human beings can't be studied scientifically through observation because they're too complex and too self-conscious. Therefore, all economics should be founded upon essentially Libertarian philosophy about the nature of individual human action (this methodology of theirs is called "praxeology"). Any praxeological conclusions are universally valid for all people.

For more, see this site:
http://mises.org/

You can also debate with them on their forum:
http://austrianforum.com/

The core of Austrian economics can be understood by reading "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises and "Man, State, Economy" by Murray Rothbard.

For an understanding of their view of monetary policy, see "What Has Government Done to Our Money?" by Murray Rothbard.

I tend to look at Austrian economics as being like bizarro-Marxism. They frame economics with poor assumptions -- like methodological individualism (as opposed to the Hegelian dialectic) and subjective theory of value (as opposed to the LTV) -- and therefore come up with a dubious "proof" for their utopian idealistic society, which is a highly efficient and practical economy that's totally unregulated, probably even without any government, as opposed to a highly efficient and practical economy that's run entirely by the state.

Finally, although the Austrians can be considered "Liberals," for their support for individual rights and freedom, their capitalist extremism (if they could even be called "capitalists") laid the groundwork for Fascism in Austria, as Fascism in Austria was later defined as a combination between radical economic liberalism and nationalism. Even today, Austrians have a cult of personality around Mises, and have an "Us vs. Them" mentality, which makes them feel the need to be intellectually dishonest in order to spread the movement. Once again, the Marxist parallels become more clear.

They issue a "scholarly" journal: the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Their articles tend to be rather conflated, often taking credit for others' accomplishments, while misinterpreting other fundamental economic concepts, outright incorrect facts, and an overabundance of citations so as to make their articles seem more scholarly.

Even fellow Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan, who is a Neoclassical economist, has attacked the school for being pseudoscientific, and for not laying enough groundwork in economics to be considered a distinct school:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

[Sefarst]

Just to clear up the issue about Paul's position on the gold standard.

"Paul says he 'wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard,' but would push to legalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove the sales tax on them, so that gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies can compete on a level playing field with fiat Federal Reserve notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use 'sound money' to protect their purchasing power or to continue using fiat money."

Source: Wikipedia

[TragicMonkey]

Step 1: Steal underpants
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: Profit!

[Mister Agenda]

Actually it seems to me that this would destabilize the currency. Under inflation the demand for reserve notes would decrease meaning the price would decrease, meaning further inflation. Under deflation the demand would increase meaning the price of money goes up, and that means more deflation.

The supply of fiat currency is arbitrary (see Zimbabwe) in the sense that you can pretty much issue as much as you want, so there's no reason for the central bank to issue more money when it is devalued or less money when it is overvalued.

[Mister Agenda]

It's worth dwelving into Ron Paul's views regarding church/state seperation. He fully believes there is no such thing.

I strongly disagree with him about that, but it doesn't distinguish him much from some of the other Republican candidates. At least he believes in evolution.

[Mister Agenda]

Ron Paul believes that your state should be making laws about things like abortions and its not in the scope of the federal government. So he supports freedom for everyone except people in the deep southern states and Utah.

Roe v. Wade, IMHO, was not wrongly decided, but it WAS wrongly argued, which is one of the things that makes it vulnerable. The right to not be a slave was already firmly established.

[Corsair 115]

Mr. Paul apparently believes in the mythical "North American Union" and the "NAFTA superhighway." It makes me wonder how many other members of Congress are there who share a similar misunderstanding of the basics of cross-border trade and related issues.

[marksman]

To me it's quite funny to see people arguing against the constitution.
You mean the United States Constitution that explicitly states that Congressional law is the supreme law of the land that takes precedence over state laws? (Otherwise known as the Supremacy Clause). You haven't read any of the Constitutional law cases I asked you to, did you, Oliver?

Ron Paul would like limited government (which is subtly different from a federal government of limited powers) and that's a fine policy position. But to say that's what the Constitution mandates is patently false.

[Skepticybe]

Religion has a legitimate role to play in government
Insurance companies should be forced to cover "alternative" medicine, including homeopathy
Mr. Paul's super-strict interpretation of the constitution should always trump common sense

I don't need to know any more than that to know he is unworthy of an educated vote.

But I do like seeing him run and stir things up. Go Ron Paul!

[Oliver]

Mr. Paul apparently believes in the mythical "North American Union" and the "NAFTA superhighway." It makes me wonder how many other members of Congress are there who share a similar misunderstanding of the basics of cross-border trade and related issues.


The Independent Task Force on North America is a project organized by the Council on Foreign Relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations) (U.S.), the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Council_of_Chief_Executives), and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_Foreign_Affairs_%28Mexico%29). It was chaired by former Canadian politician John Manley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Manley_%28politician%29) and advocates a greater economic and social integration among Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico), and the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States).
It was launched in October 2004 and published two documents: Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010 (March 2005) and its final report Building a North American Community[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_american_union#_note-0) (May 2005).
The final report proposed increased international cooperation between the nations of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), and Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico), similar in some respects to that of the European Community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Community) that preceded the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union). As this report states, "The Task Force's central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.


Full Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_american_union"
The North American Free Trade Agreement (Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language): Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN)) (French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language): Accord de libre-échange nord-américain (ALENA)) is the trade bloc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_bloc) in North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America) created by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its two supplements, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#The_North_Amer ican_Agreement_on_Environmental_Cooperation) (NAAEC) and The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#The_North_Amer ican_Agreement_on_Labor_Cooperation) (NAALC), whose members are Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico), and the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). It came into effect on January 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_1), 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994).

Full Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Oh - and then there is USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-31-bush_x.htm

Oh wait ... Just Woo: :rolleyes:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/21/america/prexy.php

[WildCat]

Oh - and then there is USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-31-bush_x.htm

Oh wait ... Just Woo: :rolleyes:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/21/america/prexy.php
Oliver, none of your links have anything to do with the "NAFTA Superhighway" or the "North American Union"... :rolleyes:

[Oliver]

Oliver, none of your links have anything to do with the "NAFTA Superhighway" or the "North American Union"... :rolleyes:


Well - where did Paul say that he believes in conspiracy theories?

(Added: ) Here?:

v60TWZNVgtk
The "Nafta Superhighway" isn't a CT at all - it's just "overhyped"
by the CT'ists:

This is the more realistic view of it - still no conspiracy, just a logical
step in a global contest:

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

[dudalb]

Oliver is not doing Paul's cause any favors with his often inept advocacy.
It is amusing to see Oliver display his total ignorance of American Politics and history,though.
The only reason Oliver supports Paul is he likes the idea of a complete withdrawal of American from World affairs.

[Oliver]

Oliver is not doing Paul's cause any favors with his often inept advocacy.
It is amusing to see Oliver display his total ignorance of American Politics and history,though.
The only reason Oliver supports Paul is he likes the idea of a complete withdrawal of American from World affairs.


Oliver, Oliver, Oliver. What is your point? Feel free to make one... :rolleyes:

[Corsair 115]

Oliver seems to be under the impression that the Independent Task Force on North America has the power to enact legislation. It doesn't. It's merely going to make recommendations which the politicians then have to sort through in order to see which ones are doable and which ones aren't. And just like any other number of reports and studies commissioned by a government, it will probably only be partially adopted, or be shelved completely and forgotten.


Oliver apparently doesn't understand that...

"The Task Force's central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter....is about unified trade and security standards between the three countries. Why is that necessary? Mostly so that Canada and Mexico don't get shut out of the American market due to U.S. concerns over security and trade matters. There have already been many slowdowns and delays on the U.S.-Canadian border due to U.S. security regulations.

It is by no means anything remotely like the political union that the term "North American Union" is often touted or implied to be.


Oliver apparently doesn't understand that NAFTA is just a trade deal about lowering tariffs and other barriers to cross-border trade. I'm pretty sure I've posted links before where Oliver could read the entire text of the agreement for himself. He also doesn't seem to understand that NAFTA specifically allows any of the signatory nations to withdraw from the agreement with proper notice.

Even with NAFTA, it hasn't prevented the United States from unilaterally ignoring the rules of the deal whenever domestic politics made it politically expedient to do so. See: softwood lumber.

[Corsair 115]

Well - where did Paul say that he believes in conspiracy theories? I'm going by what I saw in the Republican debate the other night, and Paul said something to the effect that the NAU was not just a conspiracy theory, there was something real behind it.

Which is why I said "apparently believes" in my original statement. It's possible I took his reply out of context, or missed part of it, so I purposely chose to use a qualifer. If someone has the transcript of the debate, we can look at precisely what he said.


This is the more realistic view of it - still no conspiracy, just a logical step in a global contest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafta_superhighwayYes, a Texas-only highway project got inflated to be some sort of gigantic, Mexico-to-Canada NAFTA superhighway. The problem is, some people still believe in this mythical superhighway.

[Oliver]

Oliver seems to be under the impression that the Independent Task Force on North America has the power to enact legislation. It doesn't. It's merely going to make recommendations which the politicians then have to sort through in order to see which ones are doable and which ones aren't. And just like any other number of reports and studies commissioned by a government, it will probably only be partially adopted, or be shelved completely and forgotten.


Oliver apparently doesn't understand that...

...is about unified trade and security standards between the three countries. Why is that necessary? Mostly so that Canada and Mexico don't get shut out of the American market due to U.S. concerns over security and trade matters. There have already been many slowdowns and delays on the U.S.-Canadian border due to U.S. security regulations.

It is by no means anything remotely like the political union that the term "North American Union" is often touted or implied to be.


Oliver apparently doesn't understand that NAFTA is just a trade deal about lowering tariffs and other barriers to cross-border trade. I'm pretty sure I've posted links before where Oliver could read the entire text of the agreement for himself. He also doesn't seem to understand that NAFTA specifically allows any of the signatory nations to withdraw from the agreement with proper notice.

Even with NAFTA, it hasn't prevented the United States from unilaterally ignoring the rules of the deal whenever domestic politics made it politically expedient to do so. See: softwood lumber.


I understand that this is a trade deal. So does Paul.
The point Paul is complaining about is that Home- and Land-owners
are forced to give up their property to expand the existing Highways.
I never heard him say that NAFTA is about to overthrow the world
or crap like that.

And he's right. If you own something, you own something. The
Constitution says that the Governemnt isn't allowed to decide
about your property. That's a plausible point - and it's plausible to
the basis of US-Law - the Constitution. Nice to see that so many
people in here give a FFFF about their basic laws and rights.

In any way: This isn't a conspiracy at all. And I never believed
it since I took some time to look at it ... Nor does Paul claim that
to be a conspiracy - if you watched the recent debates:

Did you see it?
Qc36BkyfHNI

[Dabljuh]

(... lots ...)

Please, I'm very familiar with the old austrian school. I also strongly disagree with your notion that they're quasi-marxist or otherwise far outside. The austrian school was a small circle of people who are all dead now, that has helped to develop and advance the general field of economics in a beneficial way, and are definitely not outsiders today, they are part of the Mainstream. But that's Mises and Hayek.

I was unaware that Ron Paul proclaimed he subscribed to "the austrian school". Bad move.

Personally, I tend to bundle the austrian school together with Friedman. Who liked to style himself as a genius of economics, when in all reality he simply restated what other people had said before him as if it was from his own genius mind. He didn't invent monetarism, that was Gesell.

The austrian school was going towards the direction of anarcho-capitalism (and is also the foundation on most modern AC theories, as far as I know). "Privately operated currencies" are not actually a bad idea. But it'd be news to me indeed if they were such adamant defenders of the gold standard as you described. But wait, you didn't. But let's be clear about that.

Well, the austrian school is mostly Mises and Hayek, who gave lots of important input to the "general" economics. so you have to understand - if you have someone designate himself to be part of the "austrian school" today he's an idiot or a fraud. There is no austrian school. The austrian school is a thing of the past. Dead. There's better microeconomic theories now (mostly the "dump microeconomics into the dumpster where it belongs"-theory).

People calling themselves as "austrian schoolers" today are most likely trying to give their own insane ideas a shred of legitimacy.

Be fair.

It's "Your particular brand of Anarcho-Capitalism"

Let the austrians stay dead.

[Dabljuh]

...Conspiracy Theory...
I'm talking about "ZOMG JEWISH BANKERS TAKE OVER THE WORLD WITH FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING AND FIAT MONEY" (dramatized)

(Which is what I roughly remember from watching Ron on a youtube video during the 2006 elections, IIRC)

[Nathyn]

Please, I'm very familiar with the old austrian school. I also strongly disagree with your notion that they're quasi-marxist or otherwise far outside. The austrian school was a small circle of people who are all dead now, that has helped to develop and advance the general field of economics in a beneficial way, and are definitely not outsiders today, they are part of the Mainstream. But that's Mises and Hayek.

I was unaware that Ron Paul proclaimed he subscribed to "the austrian school". Bad move.

Personally, I tend to bundle the austrian school together with Friedman. Who liked to style himself as a genius of economics, when in all reality he simply restated what other people had said before him as if it was from his own genius mind. He didn't invent monetarism, that was Gesell.

The austrian school was going towards the direction of anarcho-capitalism (and is also the foundation on most modern AC theories, as far as I know). "Privately operated currencies" are not actually a bad idea. But it'd be news to me indeed if they were such adamant defenders of the gold standard as you described. But wait, you didn't. But let's be clear about that.

Well, the austrian school is mostly Mises and Hayek, who gave lots of important input to the "general" economics. so you have to understand - if you have someone designate himself to be part of the "austrian school" today he's an idiot or a fraud. There is no austrian school. The austrian school is a thing of the past. Dead. There's better microeconomic theories now (mostly the "dump microeconomics into the dumpster where it belongs"-theory).

People calling themselves as "austrian schoolers" today are most likely trying to give their own insane ideas a shred of legitimacy.

Be fair.

It's "Your particular brand of Anarcho-Capitalism"

Let the austrians stay dead.
Dabljuh, I've argued with them over the gold standard before. They basically believe that deflation is not a problem, as prices and wages can automatically adjust.

Essentially, they don't believe in "price instability," unless of course it's caused by government-driven inflation.

See their articles:

"The Blessings of Deflation"
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1241

and

"The Imaginary Evils of Deflation"
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1040

A lot of the stuff on their site is funny to read, like economic satire.

[Nathyn]

Also, there are SOME actual economists that subscribe to Austrian economics, believe it or not.

For instance, Walter Block.

His major contribution to Austrian economics? Defending slave contracts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Block#Slave_Contracts

[Checkmite]

Source? (No Alex Jones/Fox/WWN-like agenda-sites, please!)


Will Ron Paul's own website (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/238/what-does-the-first-amendment-really-mean/) work?

Similarly, the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis. Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to "Almighty God" in their writings, including the Declaration of Independence. It is only in the last 50 years that federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights.

I previously introduced legislation entitled "The First Amendment Restoration Act" to address this kind of judicial overreach and reassert true First amendment religious freedoms. The bill becomes especially timely now, as it clarifies that federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over matters of religious freedom. It also restores real religious freedom by making it clear that the federal government cannot forbid expressions of religion, including the Ten Commandments, in either public or private life.

Read the whole article to see Paul completely mischaracterize the entire Supreme Court "Pledge of Allegiance" issue and ruling.

More mischaracterization (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/237/the-first-amendment-protects-religious-speech/):

The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech......." would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games.

...This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. Should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!

[Beeyon]

And he's right. If you own something, you own something. The
Constitution says that the Governemnt isn't allowed to decide
about your property. That's a plausible point - and it's plausible to
the basis of US-Law - the Constitution. Nice to see that so many
people in here give a FFFF about their basic laws and rights.

Really?

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Are you just making stuff up as you go along?

[Tippit]

Dabljuh, I've argued with them over the gold standard before. They basically believe that deflation is not a problem, as prices and wages can automatically adjust.

Essentially, they don't believe in "price instability," unless of course it's caused by government-driven inflation.

See their articles:

"The Blessings of Deflation"
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1241

and

"The Imaginary Evils of Deflation"
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1040

A lot of the stuff on their site is funny to read, like economic satire.

Deflation isn't a problem when it mirrors the rate of productivity growth. Stable prices shouldn't be the goal, but rather the stability of final demand:

"But a stable price level is far from being ideal in an economy with changing productivity: it does not minimize the burden borne by the price system, and it does not contribute to the efficient working of fixed nominal contracts. The reason, in a nutshell, is that it is the stability of nominal spending (domestic final demand), and not that of the price level per se, that is crucial to general macroeconomic stability. When productivity stays constant, zero inflation is equivalent to constant final demand, but not otherwise. Instead, stability of final demand requires that a rate of deflation equal to minus the rate of productivity growth. I call a monetary target based on this rule a "productivity norm.""

http://www.terry.uga.edu/~selgin/

Deflation can occur in two ways, or a combination of both - monetary manipulation resulting in a decrease in the stock of money, or productivity growth. If fiat money and FRB are the keys to prosperity, then why did the US suffer the worst depression in history after the inception of the Federal Reserve System in 1913? Surely when Benjamin Strong, chairman of the NY Fed contracted the money supply he knew what was going to happen. The Depression couldn't have occured without the corresponding malinvestment and speculation that preceded it in the roaring twenties, and that is the result of inflationary monetary policy.

I'm not arguing that deflation is a good thing, I'm arguing against monetary manipulation which is either inflationary OR deflationary. That sort of manipulation simply isn't possible with sound money, and 100% reserve banking. And consider who benefits from the issuance of new money. When you introduce new monetary tokens into circulation, there is a transfer of purchasing power with distinct winners and losers - this is the moral justification behind counterfeiting laws! The only reason that you and other proponents of the status quo can seem to come up with for why institutional counterfeiting is somehow acceptable is to maintain "price stability", when price stability in the face of changing productivity is not desirable at all.

[Dabljuh]

"But a stable price level is far from being ideal in an economy with changing productivity: it does not minimize the burden borne by the price system, and it does not contribute to the efficient working of fixed nominal contracts. The reason, in a nutshell, is that it is the stability of nominal spending (domestic final demand), and not that of the price level per se, that is crucial to general macroeconomic stability. When productivity stays constant, zero inflation is equivalent to constant final demand, but not otherwise. Instead, stability of final demand requires that a rate of deflation equal to minus the rate of productivity growth. I call a monetary target based on this rule a "productivity norm.""
And thus the guy completely ignores that the biggest, by a wide and large margin biggest problem of our money is that it's turnover rate doesn't stay constant. Especially not during changing price levels. Sorry, that is trivial bunk, as if written by a 15 year old making up his own theories about money.

Deflation can occur in two ways, or a combination of both - monetary manipulation resulting in a decrease in the stock of money, or productivity growth. If fiat money and FRB are the keys to prosperity, then why did the US suffer the worst depression in history after the inception of the Federal Reserve System in 1913? Surely when Benjamin Strong, chairman of the NY Fed contracted the money supply he knew what was going to happen. The Depression couldn't have occured without the corresponding malinvestment and speculation that preceded it in the roaring twenties, and that is the result of inflationary monetary policy.
I don't think Benjamin Strong knew what would happen. Before the Stock crash, the monetary supply was increased constantly to keep the prices stable, rising money supplies and lowering money turnover as the interest rates sank down. When the stock crash happened, Benjamin Strong did what he realized he should have done before - curbing the money supply during the stocks rise. But he did it at the exactly worst time, when everyone was already trying to get rid of their stocks, boosting the deflationary trend.

Basically because of his incompetence, he did the opposite of what Keynes later suggested.

Keynes has a bad rep in the states these days, but he shouldn't. He's probably the greatest macroeconomical mind of the 20th century.

A depression happens because of deflation. Deflation happens because of a reducing monetary turnover rate. The reduced turnover rate occurs because of the interest rates lowering down to the liquidity fee. The interest rates lowers because the economy grows and scarcity is removed - what capitalism does best.

I'm not arguing that deflation is a good thing, I'm arguing against monetary manipulation which is either inflationary OR deflationary.You are arguing that a deflation is a better thing that "monetary manipulation" (which is intended to keep the prices STABLE)

That sort of manipulation simply isn't possible with sound money, and 100% reserve banking.Lets assume there's now a 100% gold based currency. US gold reserves are worth 164 billion right now, about twice the net worth of Bill gates. Say, I'm an evil jewish banker who owns 20% of the US' gold supply. If I hoarded the gold, it would act like reducing the money supply (M0) by 20%. Vice versa, if I decided to no longer hoard it, and invest it instead, it'd work out to increase the M0 supply by 25%! So the price niveau would be pretty much at my whim, for no risk at my end whatsoever.

So after all, this sort of manipulation is easily possible with "sound money" and you're proven dead wrong. Of course being dead wrong hasn't stopped you before from posting your inane theories, so I don't assume its gonna stop you now.

And consider who benefits from the issuance of new money. When you introduce new monetary tokens into circulation, there is a transfer of purchasing power with distinct winners and losers - this is the moral justification behind counterfeiting laws! The only reason that you and other proponents of the status quo can seem to come up with for why institutional counterfeiting is somehow acceptable is to maintain "price stability", when price stability in the face of changing productivity is not desirable at all.Yes it is. Price stability is always desireable. An inflation is robbing the creditors and savers, a deflation is robbing the debitors and consumers of value. You advocate robbing people?

[Oliver]

Will Ron Paul's own website (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/238/what-does-the-first-amendment-really-mean/) work?

Read the whole article to see Paul completely mischaracterize the entire Supreme Court "Pledge of Allegiance" issue and ruling.

More mischaracterization (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/237/the-first-amendment-protects-religious-speech/):


Ehm, the first Amendment actually separates church and state
by it's own wording - it doesn't allow to prefer one Religion over
another. Concerning praying in School, the 2.A says that
Government shall make no law about those issues. So I guess
it's up to the Schools and Parents.

Anyway - I'm actually on your side. Someone should burn down
the Bible Belt.

[Oliver]

Really?

Are you just making stuff up as you go along?


How so? You confirmed what I said.

Added: This is from the Campaign Site:

We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”

Source: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/property-rights-and-eminent-domain/

[Dabljuh]

For example, I can't use a gun to shoot people. That robs me of value - the gun is worth less if I can't use it to shoot people with. Where's the just compensation in that?

[WildCat]

Ehm, the first Amendment actually separates church and state
by it's own wording - it doesn't allow to prefer one Religion over
another. Concerning praying in School, the 2.A says that
Government shall make no law about those issues. So I guess
it's up to the Schools and Parents.
No, the public schools cannot decide they want to have prayers. If the parents want their kids to participate in school-led prayer they can send them to a private school.

And none of that is from the "2.A". :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

For example, I can't use a gun to shoot people. That robs me of value - the gun is worth less if I can't use it to shoot people with. Where's the just compensation in that?
And I can't use my yard to grow pot in, or raise livestock. Oh, the injustice of it all!

[Rob Lister]

double post, delete

[Rob Lister]

For example, I can't use a gun to shoot people. That robs me of value - the gun is worth less if I can't use it to shoot people with. Where's the just compensation in that?

There is nothing in the law that prevents you from using your gun to shoot people. Just be damn sure the shooting is justified by law; self-defense, reasonable force, yada

[Beeyon]

How so? You confirmed what I said.
How did I confirm what you said?

And he's right. If you own something, you own something. The
Constitution says that the Governemnt isn't allowed to decide
about your property.You said that the government isn't allowed to take away your property.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.The constitution says that the government can take away your property so long as your are compensated fairly.

[Oliver]

How did I confirm what you said?

You said that the government isn't allowed to take away your property.

The constitution says that the government can take away your property so long as your are compensated fairly.


As long you mean that the Property-Owner thinks that
he was compensated fairly, you surely have a point.
Paul's stance is that the compensation aren't fairly
thanks to regulations. That's part of his support from
Americans.

On the other Hand, I don't know much about all the
property-things he's complaining about - such as the Nafta
Highway. Your property-rights doesn't bother me a
lot - the Freedom-Aspect of Americans is more relevant
to me.

[OneShotKi11]

Originally Posted by The Constitution
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The constitution says that the government can take away your property so long as your are compensated fairly..

NO, the government cant take your property without giving you some money for it!!.....
Now does anyone else want to repeat the same thing over and over!!!]

Please people pay attention to what you post!:confused:

[gumboot]

As long you mean that the Property-Owner thinks that
he was compensated fairly, you surely have a point.


Actually I think as long as the United States Supreme Court believes the property owner was compensated fairly, he surely has a point.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Actually I think as long as the United States Supreme Court believes the property owner was compensated fairly, he surely has a point.

-Gumboot


That's not what the "We the people" constitution says.

It literally translated says: "If 'We the People' think
that 'We the People' are compensated fairly, then 'We
the People' allow the Government to take Property".

In no way it says the Government can determine what
fair compensation is - "We the People" decide.

That's exactly what the Ron Paul supporters think
regarding Property Rights.

Are you personally willing to let the Government decide
about what is "fair compensation" about your personal
property? I don't think so.

[gumboot]

That's not what the "We the people" constitution says.

It literally translated says: "If 'We the People' think
that 'We the People' are compensated fairly, then 'We
the People' allow the Government to take Property".

In no way it says the Government can determine what
fair compensation is - "We the People" decide.

That's exactly what the Ron Paul supporters think
regarding Property Rights.

Are you personally willing to let the Government decide
about what is "fair compensation" about your personal
property? I don't think so.


You don't know anything whatsoever about government or law do you?

Ever heard of the phrase "separation of powers"?

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

You don't know anything whatsoever about government or law do you?

Ever heard of the phrase "separation of powers"?

-Gumboot


I heard about it - but the point you tried to make was:
"United States Supreme Court decides".

According to the Constitution, the People have the
final word - even if the Supreme Court thinks otherwise.

Why? - Because the Constitution is about "We, the People",
not "We the supreme court", "We, the Government", "Me, the
President" ...[fill in the blank]

And as I pointed out, the Ron Paul supporters like the
Idea to be the ones who are mentioned as being the
"We the People".

Do you think it's bad to feel this way in light of someones
own rights?

[gumboot]

I heard about it - but the point you tried to make was:
"United States Supreme Court decides".

According to the Constitution, the People have the
final word - even if the Supreme Court thinks otherwise.

Why? - Because the Constitution is about "We, the People",
not "We the supreme court", "We, the Government", "Me, the
President" ...[fill in the blank]

And as I pointed out, the Ron Paul supporters like the
Idea to be the ones who are mentioned as being the
"We the People".

Do you think it's bad to feel this way in light of someones
own rights?


When "we the people" wrote "we the people", "we the people" said:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

In other words "we the people" disagree with you, who are not "we the people". So stop acting like you speak for "we the people" when you can't even be bothered reading what "we the people" actually wrote when "we the people" said "we the people". You wouldn't know what "we the people" intended if "we the people" spelled it out to you in clear text beginning "we the people" and clearly signed "we the people", which incidentally is exactly what "we the people" did when "we the people" wrote "we the people".

-Gumboot

[gtc]

I69 and the Trans Texas Corridor (which could form part of I69) are real proposals as far as I am aware. These would improve the North-South transport within the US and improve the transportation links between Canada, the US and Mexico.

I have no idea how these became a Conspiracy Theory. Perhaps its because there is something which sounds like the TTC in Robert A Heinlein's book 'Job'.

[Oliver]

When "we the people" wrote "we the people", "we the people" said:

In other words "we the people" disagree with you, who are not "we the people". So stop acting like you speak for "we the people" when you can't even be bothered reading what "we the people" actually wrote when "we the people" said "we the people". You wouldn't know what "we the people" intended if "we the people" spelled it out to you in clear text beginning "we the people" and clearly signed "we the people", which incidentally is exactly what "we the people" did when "we the people" wrote "we the people".

-Gumboot


It doesn't matter. The wording in the Constitution is
pretty clear - and unfortunately, the Constitution is
the law of the land. You can deny it - the wording
in the Bill of Rights is pretty clear to me:

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So what if the Property-Owner disagrees with what is "Just"?
Let me guess - your point is the Government decides, not
the Property owner.

To me it's logical to say that "JUST" means: The property
owner AND the Government have to agree with each other.

Not the Government decides about what the property owner
thinks is "just".

[gumboot]

It doesn't matter. The wording in the Constitution is
pretty clear - and unfortunately, the Constitution is
the law of the land. You can deny it - the wording
in the Bill of Rights is pretty clear to me:

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So what if the Property-Owner disagrees with what is "Just"?
Let me guess - your point is the Government decides, not
the Property owner.

To me it's logical to say that "JUST" means: The property
owner AND the Government have to agree with each other.

Not the Government decides about what the property owner
thinks is "just".


Neither the government nor the property owner get to decide. The Supreme Court decides. And if Thomas the Farmer or George Bush don't like the Supreme Court's decision, they can go suck eggs, because we the people handed over absolute authority on all matters of law to the Supreme Court.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Neither the government nor the property owner get to decide. The Supreme Court decides. And if Thomas the Farmer or George Bush don't like the Supreme Court's decision, they can go suck eggs, because we the people handed over absolute authority on all matters of law to the Supreme Court.

-Gumboot


That may- or -may not be true - but it certainly would piss
me off if it was my Bill of Rights misleading wording about
my rights. :D


Just like it pisses off the Paul-Supporters concerning
property... (Like Guns, for example)

[gumboot]

That may- or -may not be true - but it certainly would piss
me off if it was my Bill of Rights misleading wording about
my rights. :D


There's nothing whatsoever misleading about it, and it is true. Just because you're incapable of reading the US Constitution doesn't mean everyone else is.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

There's nothing whatsoever misleading about it, and it is true. Just because you're incapable of reading the US Constitution doesn't mean everyone else is.

-Gumboot


While I agree that the Supreme Court finally decides
about these cases - I strongly disagree that this is in any
way a black&white Issue:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/15.html#f191

But I stand corrected concerning the point of the decision about
"Just". - It's actually not the 5th Amendment itself that decides
about the just-factor - or the Government who makes the decision
about "Just", it's the court being a "third party" about estimates
regarding just comprehension. Thanks for clarifying this point.

Anyway - being a the rascal I am, I see no reason
not to fight for property rights and to support Ron
Paul for this reason - even if I personally don't
care about US-domestic property anyway.

Do you disagree?

[gumboot]

While I agree that the Supreme Court finally decides
about these cases - I strongly disagree that this is in any
way a black&white Issue:

Your link reinforces my point that it's quite black and white as regards who has final say in the matter. In all of those cases the property owner and the US Government disagreed, and the US Supreme Court decided what was just.

Unless you can provide an example in which the US Supreme Court did not have final say, you have no grounds for claiming the delegation of authority as per interpreting the US Constitution is unclear.



Anyway - being a the rascal I am, I see no reason
not to fight for property rights and to support Ron
Paul for this reason - even if I personally don't
care about US-domestic property anyway.

Do you disagree?


I don't know what you mean. Do I disagree with what?

-Gumboot

[UserGoogol]

That's not what the "We the people" constitution says.

The full quote is informative. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the people ... establish this constitution." It's just saying that the people created the constitution to begin with. It makes no claims as to what the People are going to do once the government has been set up. Later on, of course, the constitution also assures that the people will have the ability to have some involvement in the government, namely that we elect representatives and (as of the 17th amendment) our Senators to Congress, but the Constitution as it is written is not very democratic in most senses of the word, since the founding fathers were generally suspicious of getting the people directly involved in government and figured a safer approach was simply to restrict the government's actions so that it wouldn't cause much trouble.

[Corsair 115]

Perhaps its because there is something which sounds like the TTC in Robert A Heinlein's book 'Job'.The TTC? What does the Toronto Transit Commission have to do with this? :D

[gtc]

The TTC? What does the Toronto Transit Commission have to do with this? :D

Everything.

Every single conspiracy movie ends with a fight on a TTC subway car.

They pretend its NYC subway but you can tell. Oh you can tell.

If you investigate it further, they claim that its cheaper to film in Toronto than NYC. And why is that? NAFTA. But this is just a cover story designed to distract college kids. Its not the real story.

I wish I could tell you the real story but I can't. You don't know who's reading the forum.

All I can say is this:

Its not a coincidence that the Montreal and Paris metros both use rubber tired trains. I mean who ever heard of a train with rubber tires?