angelofdeath

this statement and logic is extremely troubling. do i want to return to 18th century life? no. do i wish people lived by the non aggression principle and lived under a non tyrannical government? yes. do i think that living under an essentially non binding grossly less tyrannical (by many magnitudes) government as it was in 1774 would be better than living under the largest government in the history of the world? i think you can answer this question for yourself. you are making a few false assumptions. most notably that the government is responsible for all human progress, which is absolute nonsense. government didnt give us the personal computer, the iphone, indoor plumbing or air conditioning. you see, it is the principles of liberty that dont need to change. society can and does. for instance, the principle of liberty expressed in the first amendment protects free speech. there is no further elaboration needed. you and i both know that only hand cranked printing presses existed in the 18th century, yet the same principle that protected that is protecting speech printed off on an electronic printing press, or typed on a computer today. the other part of your post that is based on faulty logic is that you neglect to address the fact that one does not have a choice whether to use private roads, sewers if they live in a city (i have septic), even down to using cash. why? governments hold a monopoly on roads. governments hold monopolies on waste water services. it is illegal to transact in anything but federal reserve notes. can you really be considered a hypocrite for advocating freedom while you are forced to live under another type of system? i think not. are any of the other myriad of groups advocating change, all 'hypocrites' if they are still forced to live under the existing system? fringe and extreme in these cases are essentially synonymous. and you have continually called me an extremist and fringe in your same arguments and used them interchangeably. but obviously you didnt read what i wrote. i agreed with you that RP is 'fringe.' that is because americans want government to run their lives. RP doesnt. but i think it is folly to deny that he has interjected lots of issues that concern the 'fringe' into the daily debate on CNN, FOX, etc. you never heard any one talk about the FED, monetary policy, etc. before 2007/08 you sound like sean hannity. this is spin at its best. if you owe someone a million dollars and your income is 100K. does it make any sense to go and borrow more money to pay back a debt? and if you do this, how does it make your situation any better? since when did america stand for the USG holding 70 trillion, 4 TIMES THE WORLD GDP, in debt and unfunded liabilities. do you realize that every single american has a debt burden of something in the neighborhood of 300K just to pay off the deficit? this is normal? you cannot solve a debt and spending problem by more debt and spending. you only multiply the problems. it seems as though, a debt this high is extreme. but to question it and say..'gee, im PREEEEETTY sure we arent going to be able to pay that back....' a person such as my self is labeled as 'extreme.' haha. are you really that blinded by your partisan nature that you cannot distinguish the difference between MURDER and SELF FRICKING DEFENSE? no where have i stated i was against all violence, i am merely against initiated force not in self defense. do you understand the difference between murder and self defense? you see, if someone tries to kill me with a .45, i'd sure like to have my .45 to try to shoot him. there is this thing called 'justifiable homicide.' that means, if someone tries to kill me, i am within my rights to kill him in self defense. i dont tend to say the military supports ron paul. what is undeniable that of the people that gave money to political candidates, RP got the most donations. say what you will about the rest, i could really care less. i have trouble believing a guy that is essentially against everything the modern interventionist military stands for would be supported by them. so say what you will about me. i think we agree on this point, even though you seem to just wanting to argue about nothing. the ATBC is the only theory that has successfully and sufficiently explained the panics and depressions present in the economy. do you also believe that we have to 'test' the theory of gravity? or do you acknowledge that it is correct? you understand, gravity is a theory, correct? austrian economics is not a system, it is a school of thought. its simply the STUDY of human action. it is a normative science, it is not linked to politics. you can use austrian economics for good or bad. for instance, austrian theory merely states that government manipulation of credit, the monetary unit, etc will cause the business cycle. it doesnt say that the government must cease this activity. you could theoretically be an austrian economics understanding nazi and use the truths espoused by austrian theory to crash the economy. to merely show that excessive money printing and credit will wreck and economy, take a peak at zimbabwe. printing money is inflation. one of its consequences is rising prices and a devalued monetary unit. which is why zimbabwe has billion dollar notes and people taking wheel barrows of this stuff to go buy a loaf of bread. this is simple austrian theory and economics 101... printing money results in it being devalued. and it is being illustrated for all to see.

i dont think there is any denying that in todays world, the view of true limited government is 'fringe.' but look at the implications of this. its a sad day when quoting the very law of the land as stated in the bill of rights is considered 'fringe.' this shows how far down the road to serfdom the US is. consider what created this country. the freest people on earth rebelled against 'tyranny' that any libertarian today would DIE to live under. these people were taxed at something like 1% of gdp. and outside cities, laws were largely unenforceable. you could easily escape and evade, move to new territory and live free. living in a state less section of america was not only achievable, it was reality for thousands of frontier folk. and since the government was insignificant at this time, the gdp wasnt comprised of the phony numbers we have today which include government spending as some sort of productive good. consider that this country was created by resistance to its central government, secession from it, and using the combat triad to achieve this freedom. this is literally what created the nation state today known as the US. yet, if someone merely mentions this, they are branded an 'extremist.' point being, its a sad state of affairs when the exact ideals, beliefs and policies which created this country are 'fringe' or 'radical' or 'extremist.' when in reality, the beliefs held by many if not most in this country are some where in the ideological spectrum, between mitt romney/sarah palin and hillary/obama. so the term 'fringe' isnt the most descriptive. but what does it really mean to be 'extreme?' it means that you wont compromise. if means that you hold to various principles and wont give them up. you cling to what is honorable. what is 'extreme' in various other situations? lets take murder. i'd be labeled an 'extremist' because i think all murder is evil, whether its done by government, a criminal or whatever. whether its by a predator drone or a wiffle ball bat. i'd rather stick with the extremists, than the 'moderates.' i missed the whole argument about RP and the military and dont really see a need to go back and go over it, but im assuming its based on some semantical error on either side. i dont think there has been any denying that RP received the most MONEY from individual soldiers atleast in the last race (not sure about this one) which would also lend one to state that the 'military' backs RP the most, as far as putting their money where their mouths are. the austrian business cycle theory not only has 100% correct theories on these issues, it has all of history on its side to prove them. to deny this is to simply not understand one lick of economics.

bump 1600+ gold

for what its worth, the 'poor' do not pay taxes on their wages. at least not in the US. approximately 50% of americans do not even pay income taxes. sure, the 'poor' have taxes with held from their pay, but they end up getting this back in a refund. if they do end up on net paying taxes, its insignificant. especially in terms of percentage of tax revenue. unless you make approximately 70K or more, you pay hardly any taxes in terms of total share of income tax revenue. the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of taxes and the top 1% pay 1/3 of total income tax revenue. now, the poor DO pay sales tax, cigarette tax, alcohol tax, property taxes if they own property, fuel tax, etc etc etc. but this aside, the troubling part of your post is that you think the poor should be paying to pay another poor persons way. this just seems silly on its face. a poor person does not have the discretionary income that a more well off person does. not to mention, if in the UK if the poor actually do pay taxes to help other people, you are actually damaging the poor person having his money taken because he is already struggling. have you ever been to a church? the poor may throw a few bucks in the collection plate. the well to do, give 10% or more of their income to the church. some church's are small and pay their operating costs and use the rest for charity purposes or to help the people directly in the congregation. others may pay their preacher WAY to much, but i digress. now, suppose this well to do person who pays 10% of their income to the church was having his income taxed @ this rate to fund a church. would he be just as likely to pay the 10% tax as well as give another 10% to the same church? so lets suppose this person is having his money already taken by the government to help the poor, he tends to then be less likely to give to other charities as this money has already been taken for the purpose.

Ron Paul has received $4,518,947.59 from Individual Voters; and $511.45 from PAC's, Corporations, and Lobbyists in the 2nd Quarter. Barack Obama has received $46,323,209.30 from PAC's, Corporations, and Lobbyists; and $325,551.95 from Individual Voters in the 2nd Quarter. ...and the view point ron paul represents is supposed to the ideas of 'business,' 'corporations,' and 'oppression of the poor.'

hahaha. ah yes, the bill of rights only applies to certain issues the left likes, the constitution does not matter because the government can do what it wants, the declaration of independence actually was not a declaration of secession, but a declaration of the founding generations convictions for big government. the cilone version of history. want to annoy a liberal? cite the bill of rights, talk about govt being confined by the constitution, talk about the principle of non aggression, handle your own business, support yourself and take care of your family. these are extreme positions that are not proper material for modern thought... the people like cilone are the only ones who can define the conversation. saying that theft is wrong is extreme. but you know what isnt extreme? a total debt of twice the worlds gdp. thats not extreme. whats 'extreme' is someone like myself saying that its going to be a tad bit hard to pay that off. mainsteam is arguing about whether the top total income confiscated by government on its citizens should be 41.3 or 43%. which way should they be looted? discuss. that is the main stream. extreme is saying taxation should only cover those articles laid out by the federal and state constitutions you reside in. extreme. thomas jefferson was an extremist. he actually said people SHOULD rebel every 20 years. patrick henry? extremist! liberty or death! he was such a terrorist.

thanks for the clear demonstration that you have absolutely NO idea of any of the principles or ideologies that gave birth to this country.

your viewpoint is quite troubling since nearly everything that has come out of my mouth comprise the same principles and rhetoric that founded this country. have you read the declaration of independence lately? its very EXTREME. but just to show my moderate mindset, im quite willing to allow you to run your community/county/state how you want, why dont you just let me/us run ours how we want? i'd even be willing to have an actual debate about the merits of your policies. tell you what, once you eliminate poverty, illiteracy, and whatever problems you can conceive of in washington DC, we can THEN talk about moving to other parts of the country. i guess i'll be waiting a LONG time before we can have a serious conversation about your policies. and while you are reciting maddow and olbermann, i'll admit i am a fan of ron paul. but it must be noted i am more radical than he is.

the definition of fringe ideas is that i believe mitt romney and joe biden are both idiots. thats all it means, no matter how you spin it

once again... extreme bullshit. just means i disagree with both joe biden and mitch mcconnell. off with these extremists heads! ah yes, assumptions. i've only been 10 miles from my house my entire life. your only problem is that you are just so brainwashed by this statist rhetoric that you cannot think of any other way to solve any problem in life without looking to uncle sam for help. thank goodness im an independent person.

why is it that your type assumes you know everything, have seen every situation and assume everyone else DOESNT/HASNT? its hilarious. your head is so buried in the sand, you couldnt even figure out how to get out. believe it or not, there are other ways to get things done than the liberal agenda. no matter what level of empirical, first hand experience, or theory one puts forth, your main reply is....'you need to get out of your box, the world works like this, blah blah blah, you havent seen anything.'

by extension you must also think that if someone 'helps' someone, no matter the situation surrounding it, and someone takes it away, they are against 'helping the poor.' i'd imagine if you went and stole your neighbors car and gave it to some one who didnt have a car you 'helped' the poor. but what about the act of theft? and you'd call me a hypocrite and not in favor of helping the poor because i denounce this action?

i mean, this is just hilarious. you tried to say this before AFTER i stated how much i help people. are you even reading what i said? how i gave someone a MONTHS worth of food at the drop of hat? how i donate food routinely to churches? how i tend to fix neighbors cars for free? you see only one view of the world. the urban view, you obviously dont know whats its like to be any else, especially the country. where neighbors help neighbors. what do i get out of doing this? i do it out of my own self interest, just like everything else. why? it makes me feel good. that is my self interest in this. and it also means, if i need to have my truck pulled out of a ditch one day or help welding my bush hog, someone owes me a favor, although im not one to ask. it is the height of liberal smugness to say that i am against 'helping the poor' when in fact i actually practice what YOU preach. that is, i help those in need. i dont need someone to throw me in jail if i dont help someone, i dont need a bunch of big government to tell me how to help people and i surely dont need people like you telling me my business. it seems funny though, during katrina it was walmart sending in the tractor trailer loads of stuff and the government turning them back. americans give billions to charity every year, they are most generous on earth. enough demand exists for companies to arise to provide for the TRULY destitute. the market might not support escalade owners with charity, but they will support those actually in need. but all this is moot because until the moral hazard, incentives and steering of the welfare state is curtailed, you cant even get an accurate picture of what the actual problem actually is.

you must take into account that if some sort of solid strict standards were enacted, transitioned into place and allowed people the time to react to the incentives put forth, they would do so. look at how people act with the welfare state. the incentive is to not get married/live together, have a bunch of kids, stay glued to the government for everything, then raise the next generation to do the same because they never had a bread winning father nor do they know anything else but receiving a check. imagine that we stopped rewarding this behavior with a hand out. suppose that there was no moral hazard in the situation. lets imagine that in order to have a child, you had to pay for it 100% yourself, with no implicit net to fall back on provided by the government. would you still have a bunch of kids with different fathers and not get married? or would you try to settle down and raise a family and make a living for yourself? its all about incentives. until you remove the incentives to be poor, you will always have a certain number of poor that will continually grow. how many times have you heard that people need to work under the table in order to keep collecting benefits. how many times have you heard people cant get a job because they'll lose their check? its all the time. you must realize how people act with these incentives. unemployment insurance is the perfect example. you get laid off. it sure feels good to have somethign to fall back on. but lets imagine that you dont have the incentive in your head that if you lose your job you can lay around for 2 years and not work and receive a check. would you act the same way? would you not care as much if you lost your job? the stats and real world examples are pretty clear on this. no matter how long one draws unemployment insurance, they tend to always get a jump literally right before the checks stop coming. doesnt matter if its 6 months or 2 years. right or wrong (i obviously think the system is wrong) but you cannot deny the incentives are in place to steer you to do certain things. the reasons why jobs are scarce is a subject entirely to its self.

its obvious you cannot eliminate handouts over night. why? because the government has literally created generations of people tied to the govt tit. they are dependent. it would have to be done over time with stricter standards, closing of loopholes and a re-writing of the entire welfare state. but this will never happen. politicians dont mind the waste, because throwing away money is what gets them re-elected. its quite obvious to anyone paying attention there is more waste than not in these systems. when an average guy like myself who frequents rural areas, suburban areas and urban areas only finds people who are in essence 'abusing' the welfare system...i'd be willing to bet the actual number of 'poor' on the welfare system is 50% of what it currently is, at minimum. there is something seriously wrong when you have people on food stamps, not married, and wont get married (one of the keys to financial success for lower income people) in order to stay on food stamps. when you have the incentive to father as many kids as you can with as many different woman as you can in order to get more assistance, we have a problem. what the welfare state champions dont realize is that nearly any criteria they put forth for aid creates unintended consequences and incentives which in turn breed greater poverty and more dependence. which keeps the system going on and on and makes people stay poor. if people knew that they only had themselves to rely on, or their own families, they act completely different. they make different decisions. do i have the perfect system? do i have the perfect transition? no, im not a policy maker and my business is not providing charity, it is in other fields. but i do know the market that is dynamic enough to satisfy every consumer demand it dynamic enough to funnel aid to those that truly need it. through various private institutions, charities, etc all funded by voluntarism. do you think that if you were not taxed to support the welfare state, that you would voluntarily give your $ to an organization that makes it a habit to give assistance to people talking on iphones, driving escalades and wearing a different pair of 100$ shoes a day? or would you rather contribute to an organization that provides aid to poor rural or urban families who are incapable of working for instance? if given the choice, im sure the market would put the people giving aid to escalade drivers out of business, funneling more resources to the real providers of services consumers demand. but the glaringly obvious thing everyone misses is that all the people who squawk about 'helping the poor'... that this very conversation and view point exists among so many...is indicative of an insane amount of demand for a service to help these people. whats wrong, do you feel that the proponents of the welfare state such as yourself and the millions of other who believe in helping the less fortunate who actually need help...would NOT be able or willing to handle this?

i'd argue only people with an ideological axe to grind would ever attempt to try to brand mises as a fascist. it is nothing but an attempt to slur someone based on an out of context quotation and in fact not even listening to what he is actually saying. there are a few other people (in this case a free market anarchist) who have famously said that a monarchy is slightly less tyrannical than democracy. does this mean he is a monarchist, when in fact he favors no government? other libertarians have argued that the founding generation was silly to break away from the british empire because they were living as the freest people on earth at that time and they created the system that created the biggest government on earth. does that mean they favor monarchy? and are you really citing james delong? is this the same guy who helped give us NAFTA and was part of the clinton treasury? a uber liberal ala the rachel maddown/paul krugman variety? and you think he is saying this about mises without an ideological partisan ax to grind?

the one part you wont recognize is that if some how, we eliminated all the waste, and people who are capable of providing for themselves/family but simply wont, the actual number of the 'poor' would PLUMMET. your theory is based on the govts current numbers. and we all know the majority of people on assistance are capable of providing for themselves and i think we'd both agree that people do not need assistance who drive escalades or are lottery winning millionaires. once you eliminate all this then you'll get an accurate picture of what the situation really is and we can have a rational conversation from there. right now, you are just including every single person that is on the rolls, whether they need it or not, including the millionaire lottery winner and the people driving escalades who dump out 2 gallons of milk a week in order to keep getting wic. but with a government system, it is impossible to accurately allocate these resources because they are made on a bureaucratic level and not by the combined wisdom of millions of market actors. if you some how disagree with this post, you are in effect supporting not simply helping the 'poor' or 'needy' but giving handouts to people who are quite capable of providing for themselves funded by stealing property from the productive members of society by force, without their consent.

word. but for the record, isolationist is a bad word to apply to the non interventionist view point. the last thing i support is isolationism. i support trade and commerce with all nations, i just dont support doing it at the barrel of a gun. imagine if we started calling everyone in the private economy 'isolationists' because they were against just letting people handle their own affairs. its some sort of faulty logic or orwellian type propaganda. its a word that is used to try to shut down conversation, sort of like calling someone a nazi or a racist. only a liar, a deceiver or the intellectually dishonest would try to label the free trade position as being 'isolationist.' to me its not about left vs right, its about intervention vs non intervention. well put my friend. as someone is fond of saying...'there are they who want to be left alone and then there are they, them, those, who wont leave them alone.' when in the US, look me up. i'll show you an american good time. ar15's, open carrying, and all.

once again, let the record show, all this means is i disagree with both hillary and mitt. this is absolutely false. i have happily formed alliances with the kucinich crowd over the years on various issues, even though they want national healthcare and to take away my firearms. i've formed alliances with tea party types even though they want to crush civil liberties and they praise bush. if you are trying to refer to yourself on this, its not because we dont agree on everything that i think you represent things that i hate. its because you actually have yet to say one thing i've agreed with. so because we agree on NOTHING, its safe to assume you represent everything im against. i dont know where you are getting this from. tyranny and oppression has never come from limited government it has come from total or the near total state. all dictators support some form of fascism or socialism, the anti thesis of a free market. hitler and stalin were not 'isolationalists' but internationalists. its the height of silliness to equate my views, the very same views that founded this country as the same views which are going to 'tear the country apart.' it is the policies that you and your ilk support that have torn the country apart to the point of no return. the more you boss people around, the more angry they get. the more resentful they get. there will be a time when the current government goes the way of the british government in the 1770's and 80's. the declaration of independence beautifully laid out the rights and duties of a free people, and living under tyranny isnt part of the equation.

why should i thank you for freedom that i have as a birth right? ah yes, figures. a nationalist liberal type. gotta love it. usually someone can be stomached if they are from one group or the other..

only thing i've had to do to cover the 'damages' aspect was give them a 200$ refundable deposit on one occasion. just because its not common to pay cash for these things, doesnt mean its not possible.

not necessarily so. austrian economics for example is a normative science. to elaborate further... austrian economics says central banks are responsible for the business cycle. it doesnt say that a government should do this or that, or people should support a government doing this or that. the ideology of liberty would say, if you dont want the business cycle, you get rid of the central bank. while you could be an austrian economics quoting libertarian, you could also be an austrian economics quoting fascist, socialist or what have you

thats odd, because i havent used a credit card to pay for a hotel room nor put one down in 5 years

how does one 'believe an idiotic theory to people like you?' what does that even mean? makes absolutely no sense.

my favored policy as few entangling alliances as possible and friendship and commerce with all nations. the nation should run forpol exactly how most people live their lives. do no harm to others, but if someone harms you or threatens, you retaliate. its very basic golden rule type stuff. whenever you say 'extreme' it simply means is just something that both hillary clinton and mitt romney disagree on. thats it. it just means im not within that small ideological spectrum and therefore, i need to shut up because i am out of the realm of polite thought in the world of cilone. its not an extreme example, but in essence that is exactly what government is. if you refuse to participate, you go to jail and/or ultimately are killed if you resist sufficiently enough.