Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[CILONE/SK]

Your whole argument is flawed. You equate the amount money a company makes to the level of good it is for the people. You do not take into account anything to do with the well being of the people. To write off pollution as a property rights issue us just basically nonsense and just shows us how much you would sell this country out to business. Tell the people that are victims of fracking in PA and NY that can not drink their water, that it is only a property dispute. How about air pollution?? Is that also a property dispute?

 

Also to write off the era of barons as they just have a good market share is denying history. They overwhelmingly controlled Americas money, that is why people worked for them. They were ruthless in crushing even the smallest competition. They made it that you either worked for them as slave labor for slave wages or you just did not work and went hungry.

This was the closest time your theories came into existence in our history and it was a complete failure for the American people. Except of course for the top select few who controlled those businesses. You can personally deny history, but that still does not make what really happened go away.

 

You are right, we can not continue this conversation. The main reason is you are revising history and there is nothing productive that can happen in a discussion when one side refuses to view history as it really happened.

 

I am ok with us disagreeing, but what I do not get with you is how can you be so much for America and yet you are so willing to advocate for Americans to be at the whim of businesses and the ability of their profits. Do you not understand that no company will ever choose the people over their profits? ThE road you advocate leads to slavery to companies for the American people. There is a reason that Austrian economics has never been put in place. It just does not work and there is nothing to suggest that it would work for a country thE size of the US.

 

BTW, how many people and businesses did walmart put out of business and out of jobs? You say they are efficient. I say they are killing America by killing jobs.

 

Like I said you are for business and I am for the people, you Hayek ball licker.

I am done, because we will never agree and we think the end state of America should be something totally different from each other.

[Zig]

I don't think your ideas are for the people at all. It sounds to me like you are for big government and regulation, because you feel that big business has had it's shot at a "free market" system and abused the system causing harm to the people. History does show that America has suffered under the abuses of the "free market" system by corporations, but again it really doesn't sound to me like you listen to the man you hate most very often. If you did you would have already heard his argument that it wasn't free market capitalism that allowed big business in America to run rampant, but it was corporatism in harmony with big government, the military industrial complex, and a monopoly over our monetary policies by the Fed who have hurt the American people the most and led us through crises after crises due to their abuse and greed (and also war). I would assume that your answers are to give the people who are seated in power of this very structure, this very system that you claim has abused and enslaved the American people, the reigns on controlling the new and improved system that simply throws out everything this country was built upon under the guise that we can't be free and have liberty because we take advantage. It sounds like Chris Matthews when he says to Ron Paul, "Total freedom doesn't work." So are we supposed to throw out the idea of freedom and liberty in this country because our government, corporations, and the military industrial complex abused our system and broke the law for their own interests? Then we put ourselves in further danger... and as you said previously, we exacerbate the dilemma because we give further power to the very same people who are continuously putting us in crises situations.

 

As Ron Paul would say, the problem in this country is not the fundamental ideas written in the Constitution such as Free Market Capitalism, Freedom, Liberty, the Bill of Rights, etc. People like you want to demonize the fundamental ideals in this country that have been here since our nations founding and attempt to make others believe that these ideals have put our nation in danger and should be thrown away and replaced by over-regulation, big government, and tyranny because we are too irresponsible, greedy, and selfish to control ourselves. The reality is that corporations, big government, the military industrial complex, and the Federal Reserve monopoly of printing fiat money is to blame, and has been breaking the laws of the Constitution for over 60 years. These are the reasons why corporations have been able to run rampant and why our economy constantly faces instability and a new crises every other 3-4 months, among many other devastating effects to our nation.

 

Socialism vs Corporatism

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=806

Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.

 

Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.

 

A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care "exchanges". Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.

 

Similarly, Obama's "cap-and-trade" legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in "carbon trading." This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.

 

To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President's agenda.

 

When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President's policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term -- corporatism -- forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.

 

Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.

 

Ron Paul's policies force the nation to debate the philosophy and ideals of the role of government, so when you discuss Ron Paul you MUST engage in idealistic conversation or you are simply not understanding the candidate.

[angelofdeath]

Your whole argument is flawed. You equate the amount money a company makes to the level of good it is for the people.

 

if microsoft makes a bunch of money selling computers, parts, whatever, super cheap, it also means that the poor are more easily able to afford a computer. it means people voluntary gave money to microsoft. through this competition of the market place, computers that were unattainable to anyone except the US government with its unlimited supply of money, could afford one. now a poor person can run a lap top they got for 500 bucks on their couch. capitalism raises living standards, benefitting ALL.

 

 

To write off pollution as a property rights issue us just basically nonsense and just shows us how much you would sell this country out to business. Tell the people that are victims of fracking in PA and NY that can not drink their water, that it is only a property dispute.

 

if someone has a right to the water, (most of these cases were of government controlled municipal water supplies as far as i understand) then the people have a right to not having pollutants dumped in the water.

 

on a more simpler level, if someone poisons my well by whatever means, this is an invasion of my property. seems pretty simple to understand. this 'country couldnt be sold' to business because they would be liable personally for their pollutants. such as polluting my well, or your water supply.

 

 

They overwhelmingly controlled Americas money, that is why people worked for them. They were ruthless in crushing even the smallest competition. They made it that you either worked for them as slave labor for slave wages or you just did not work and went hungry.

 

you are forgetting that people were already living in poverty stricken conditions on farms. they moved from these farms to the cities. do you purposefully move to seek worse conditions? the conditions america was in then, is not unlike what many third world countries are in today. if we put the US regulatory system in place in a third world country, how many people would remain employed, the next day? NONE. are people better off or worse after this?

if it is possible to pay someone slave wages or else, why arent doctors making minimum wage?

 

You are right, we can not continue this conversation. The main reason is you are revising history and there is nothing productive that can happen in a discussion when one side refuses to view history as it really happened.

 

its not revising history, its about telling the truth. something you didnt learn in your youth propaganda camp.

 

I am ok with us disagreeing, but what I do not get with you is how can you be so much for America and yet you are so willing to advocate for Americans to be at the whim of businesses and the ability of their profits. Do you not understand that no company will ever choose the people over their profits? ThE road you advocate leads to slavery to companies for the American people. There is a reason that Austrian economics has never been put in place. It just does not work and there is nothing to suggest that it would work for a country thE size of the US.

 

you are demonstrating your ignorance. werent you the guy who first said a long time ago that you were not interested in the 'economics of austria' when austrian economics came up? i think so.

 

austrian economics is not a 'system' to be instituted, it is a study of human action.

 

no one chooses 'people' over profits. you do not go to work for the benefit of your employer, you do to work to benefit yourself. correct? do you work for free? do you give all your income to the needy? do you have a house? why dont you give this house to someone who needs it worse than you? do you have two eyes? you know, you only need one to function, why not give a blind person your other eye?

 

you have this troubling theory that commerce and free exchange, billions of people voluntarily purchasing goods and services within a frame work of private property, is a bad thing and that no one benefits. you can deduce that everyone benefits from an exchange in the ex ante sense because if they didnt, they would not partake in the trade to begin with.

 

but being the moderate that i am, im perfectly willing to allow you to live in socialist splendor if you allow me and my type the ability to live in liberty.

you have never answered this statement nor addressed. this simply shows that you have no use for allowing other people to live how they want, or opt out of your belief system. why not allow us each to go our separate ways?

 

BTW, how many people and businesses did walmart put out of business and out of jobs? You say they are efficient. I say they are killing America by killing jobs.

 

 

every time a walmart opens up, the lines are so long at the register you cant even go to one. i dont even like going to walmart because the demand is so high for its goods, i dont like the wait in line. people LOVE walmart. walmart didnt put people out of 'jobs' they are providing jobs. walmart didnt displace mom and pop, consumers did. walmart is simply giving consumers WHAT THEY WANT.

 

in the same sense, henry ford put the horse and buggy industry out of existence, yet EVERYONE is better off. people found more productive work elsewhere, people were able to get cheap cars, everyones living standards have risen. would you rather have horses and buggies for the sake of jobs or so you want a car? we dont want jobs, just so we can have jobs. we want productivity. ideally no one should have a job, but this will never occur because we live in a world of scarcity. as long as there is demand, people will be attempting to meet this demand. in fact, if capitalism made it so that we could own a little box, and you hit a button to get whatever you want and you didnt have to work at all, the government would probably outlaw this box on the basis that it damages jobs, not seeing that capitalism has made it so no one has to work anymore.

 

Like I said you are for business and I am for the people, you Hayek ball licker.

I am done, because we will never agree and we think the end state of America should be something totally different from each other.

 

this type of stuff is why its hard to take you seriously.

you continually feel a need to descend into silly childish name calling whenever someone challenges your world view. you are calling zig a video game playing child. he calls you out on copy and pasting shit and passing it off as your own and you dont even respond and keep on calling him a clown.

 

there was another guy just like you on a gun forum i frequent. he claimed his debate opponent wasnt in the 75th ranger regiment. the guy in question produced paper work, ID, action shots, and shots of him holding up corresponding data related to the posts to show that it was him. the troll kept on debating the same stuff and denying everything. just like you.

sorry dude, i just cant take you seriously, although you are giving me an opportunity to flap my gums about this stuff. you continually go back to broad general rebuttals to in depth arguments i have put forth in previous posts. you dont take the debate to the next level, you keep trying to keep it on the MSNBC sound clip level.

[Zig]

Paul's Vote Against Raising Debt Ceiling

http://uselectionnews.org/pauls-vote-against-raising-debt-ceiling-i-never-have-i-never-will/854678/

“While it is good to see serious debate about our debt crisis, I cannot support the reported deal on raising the nation’s debt ceiling. I have never voted to raise the debt ceiling, and I never will.

 

“This deal will reportedly cut spending by only slightly over $900 billion over 10 years. But we will have a $1.6 trillion deficit after this year alone, meaning those meager cuts will do nothing to solve our unsustainable spending problem.

 

“In fact, this bill will never balance the budget. Instead, it will add untold trillions of dollars to our deficit. This also assumes the cuts are real cuts and not the same old Washington smoke and mirrors game of spending less than originally projected so you can claim the difference as a ‘cut.’

 

“The plan also calls for the formation of a deficit commission, which will accomplish nothing outside of providing Congress and the White House with another way to abdicate responsibility.

 

“In my many years of public service, there have been commissions on everything from Social Security to energy policy, yet not one solution has been produced out of these commissions.

 

“By denying members the ability to offer amendments and only allowing an up-or-down vote that will take place in the hectic time between Thanksgiving and Christmas, this Commission essentially disenfranchises the vast majority of members from meaningfully participating in the debate over reducing spending and balancing the budget.

 

“Furthermore, despite the claims of the bill’s proponents, there is nothing to stop the commission from recommending tax increases.

 

“One of the reasons why I humbly suggest that I am the most qualified Presidential candidate is my experience to see and understand the long track record of failure, disappointments, and bad recommendations made by such commissions.

 

“Times like these require statesmanship and steady leadership, which I and the grassroots activists who have joined my campaign believe I am uniquely qualified to provide.

 

“What should bother Americans most is that under cover of this debt ceiling circus, we learned from a recent GAO one-time, limited audit that the Federal Reserve secretly pumped $16 trillion into American and foreign banks over three years. All of the Fed’s fat cat cronies were taken care of at the expense of the American public.

 

“To put that into perspective, our entire national debt is $14.5 trillion, and our annual deficit will be about $1.6 trillion, meaning the Federal Reserve created and appropriated more than our entire national debt to banks around the world in a few short years. We have been fighting in Congress these past few weeks over raising our debt ceiling by $2 trillion, an amount the Fed secretly gave away to just one big bank.

 

“For decades, politicians have promised future restraint in exchange for hikes in the debt limit. We are always told that we must act immediately to avoid a crisis. But time and time again, politicians reveal themselves to be untrustworthy, and we soon find ourselves in a crisis being led by the same folks who wish only to maintain the status quo.

 

“I believe in the great American traditions of free markets, sound money, and personal Liberty. But we are moving far away from what made us the greatest nation in human history. We must cut spending and balance our budget now, before it is too late.

 

“Let me be clear. The cuts we must make will not be easy, and there will be difficult times in the short run. But I have the greatest confidence that if we come together as a People, work hard, and do the right things, our country will be back on track in no time and on its way to unprecedented prosperity. But, if we continue to print money and pyramid debt, we will destroy ourselves and lose the promise of America forever.

 

“These difficult times require a President willing to stand against runaway spending. If elected, I will veto any spending bill that contributes to an unbalanced budget, and I will balance the budget in the first year of my term. I will not allow the Federal Reserve to destroy the value of our money by shoveling dollars into the pockets of its banker friends.

 

“I remain committed to working on behalf of the American people to drastically reduce spending and implement fundamental changes that will reform government and restore our nation’s prosperity.”

[angelofdeath]

i like how they portray the 'cuts' in the media.

 

the base line is going up by 9 trillion in 10 years. they are simply increasing spending by 7 trillion instead of 9 trillion.

 

i dont know where yall come from but if i am only spending slightly less than my insane spending increase, this is not a cut. only in DC is a reduction in an increase a 'cut'

[CILONE/SK]

AOD the reason it is hard to debate with you is because you continually use a false base as your starting point.

 

Bottom line is companies will pay their employees the very minimum that they can get away with at the same time they will to work their employees ad hard as they can get then to. Profits are all they care about. Nothing you stated says otherwise. You are talking about supply and demand. I did take it to the next level by starting to show you that there is more to America then just profits for business being the end result of everything which is what you imply. The government is not there to make a profit, it is there to take care of their people. To be so close minded to think that a free market will solve everything shows me that you are not willing to debate anything.

 

I will continue to think that you and you kind want to sell out America to the highest payer, which is reflected in your posts. It is what will happen if there was a socalled free market that was in place in the US. There is a reason that it did not work before WWI and there is no country doing it now. It does not work, if it did, people like you would be pushing the statistical data to back it up, yet there is none.

 

You are for business and not the people, to deny this after your posts just shows how extreme you are, even if you say you are a moderate.

 

An America that takes care of business and not people is not America.

[Zig]

i like how they portray the 'cuts' in the media.

 

the base line is going up by 9 trillion in 10 years. they are simply increasing spending by 7 trillion instead of 9 trillion.

 

i dont know where yall come from but if i am only spending slightly less than my insane spending increase, this is not a cut. only in DC is a reduction in an increase a 'cut'

 

it's kind of like when the stock market drops 900 points and than goes up 100 points the next day and they call it a "surge". media spin at it's finest.

[CILONE/SK]

i like how they portray the 'cuts' in the media.

 

the base line is going up by 9 trillion in 10 years. they are simply increasing spending by 7 trillion instead of 9 trillion.

 

i dont know where yall come from but if i am only spending slightly less than my insane spending increase, this is not a cut. only in DC is a reduction in an increase a 'cut'

 

This post just shows me that you view our economy as a simple check book and do not take into account the human lives that are directly affected by these cuts.

 

A balanced budget or significant cuts, do not mean shot when there are people suffering. Not once has any if you address taking care of people. If all you think about is the bottom line, injecting your thoughts on politics is wrong, because the US government is not a business that has profit margins. It is suppose to take care of the people, ecspecially over global companies.

 

To think only about the bottom line is why your theories will not work and why Ron Knobslobber will never get elected. He does not care enough for the American people and they see that, which is why he can not win in his new district.

[Zig]

The government is not there to make a profit, it is there to take care of their people.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I will continue to think that you and you kind want to sell out America to the highest payer, which is reflected in your posts. It is what will happen if there was a socalled free market that was in place in the US. There is a reason that it did not work before WWI and there is no country doing it now. It does not work, if it did, people like you would be pushing the statistical data to back it up, yet there is none.

 

The entire success and prosperity of America can be accredited to true free market capitalism. There's your statistics buddy.

 

An America that takes care of business and not people is not America.

 

You don't want to take care of the people, you want government to take care of us (you just said it) and own us like slaves. You want business to be enslaved by big government regulation, you want tyranny and you want it in replacement of liberty. Your ideas are old.

[CILONE/SK]

^ and your ideas do not work. If so, where?

[CILONE/SK]

To say that you stand for liberty, yet back a candidate that will lead us to more job loss and suffering because of it, just so a market can correct itself, does not make sense.

[Zig]

^ and your ideas do not work. If so, where?

 

I'll say it again for you...

 

The entire success and prosperity of America can be accredited to true free market capitalism. Why do you think America became the strongest, freest, most prosperous nation on earth? Because government took care of us? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[CILONE/SK]

Was that before Roosevelt enforced the Sherman Act or after that? Because before that was when your ideas were being used and America was not doing so good, but after that is arguably when America went to becoming a great country.

 

Your way did not work, history shows us when it was tried, it only benefitted a few.

[angelofdeath]

AOD the reason it is hard to debate with you is because you continually use a false base as your starting point.

 

this seems to be your fall back position when you cannot comprehend a basic argument.

 

Bottom line is companies will pay their employees the very minimum that they can get away with at the same time they will to work their employees ad hard as they can get then to. Profits are all they care about. Nothing you stated says otherwise. You are talking about supply and demand. I did take it to the next level by starting to show you that there is more to America then just profits for business being the end result of everything which is what you imply. The government is not there to make a profit, it is there to take care of their people. To be so close minded to think that a free market will solve everything shows me that you are not willing to debate anything.

 

im sure, if asked, employers would like to pay their employees negative infinity and if asked employees would like to make positive infinity. the two meet at something called marginal revenue product. i know this is going to be WAY above your head, but the reason why a doctor doesnt make 1 cent an hour is because the market values his labor at a higher wage. the reason why an employer cant pay a worker with a MRP of 20$ an hour, 1 cent an hour is because there is another employer who will pay more money. and they always tend to MRP. this is the same reason why a business cannot charge 1 million for a paper clip, as you would have us believe. no one would buy it. if a business offers a job at to low of a wage, no one will take it. if you were offered a job to do your exact job today at 1$ an hour, would you take it? or would you seek to maximize your 'profits' on your labor services elsewhere?

'

everyone looks out for their own self interest, they all seek profit. what i fail to see is how you think that you or a 'greedy corporate businessman' is are any different. i also fail to see how a 'greedy corporate businessman' that you will spend countless hours saying 'only seeks profit...' but when this same guy is sent to DC he looses his urge to seek profit.

i just heard on the news the other day that joe biden is collecting rent from the secret service. the secret service pays him for using an extra house on his property as a base. so to rephrase, joe biden gets close to the best executive protection services on the planet, and then charges the federal government 13K a year for the privilege. if we agree humans seek profit, what makes you think they automatically lose this behavior when they go to DC?

 

governments are not instituted to take care of people. not this one anyway. this government was instituted to protect rights.

 

i do not think the free market will 'solve' 'everything.' there is no such situation. there will always be human problems. what the market does, which is nothing more than you or me engaging in voluntary action, is puts the right incentives in place, and properly allocates resources. which is something the government cannot do.

 

There is a reason that it did not work before WWI and there is no country doing it now. It does not work, if it did, people like you would be pushing the statistical data to back it up, yet there is none.

 

wait, you are saying, that for over 100 years we havent had a free market. then you are saying that if it did work, we'd have 'data' to back it up. what sort of childish logic is this? 'na na na boo boo, you havent had a market in 100 years because of government! show me statistics within the last 100 years showing it works!"

 

but this aside, everything the market provides is all around you. it is the reason why you are even capable of posting idiotic marxist notions to an internet forum from your cell phone. yet you think that all these innovations and advances just exist without free exchange bringing them to us.

 

every time you give someone 3$ for a dozen eggs, it is the market at work. every time you go to work and you exchange labor for a paycheck, it is the market at work. every time you voluntarily transact in any manner, it is the market at work.

 

You are for business and not the people, to deny this after your posts just shows how extreme you are, even if you say you are a moderate.

 

i place no distinctions. im not 'for' any group. im for maximum liberty for all. im not 'for' one group over another. im for equal rights for all, special privileges for none.

[angelofdeath]

To say that you stand for liberty, yet back a candidate that will lead us to more job loss and suffering because of it, just so a market can correct itself, does not make sense.

 

liberty is not synonymous with security, material possessions, wealth, or anything other than the ability to live your life how you want without interference as long as you never aggress against another persons liberty/property.

 

we have a phony economy. its built on a house of cards. your solution is to stack the cards higher.

 

its like being a heroine addict. instead of confronting the problem and reversing the course of action, your solution is to give the guy more heroine and claim you are helping him. the first step is to acknowledge the problem and begin to reverse course.

[CILONE/SK]

See, AOD you keep going back to how a market functions and say nothing about caring for the people. The bottom line is not the only thing that matters. This is why RP will never be elected. A good elected official takes care if there people. This is something you do not get.

 

Like I said, there is a reason your system has not been used in human history. It does not work and the majority of people see that. Regardless of how you try to twist my words. A free market is not the answer to anything except for companies who want to make maximum profits on the backs it the people. A free market does nothing for the people.

 

Not once have you addressed taking care of the people. You talk about liberty, but you can not see that in a free market, liberty is gone and the bottom line of companies is in it's place.

[Zig]

Your way did not work, history shows us when it was tried, it only benefitted a few.

 

The way you are advocating benefits the few more than you understand. When the people have liberty is when they can protect themselves from monopoly and corruption. Ron Paul was discussing these topics 25 years ago...

 

Antitrust Laws Actually Promote Monopoly

http://www.lppgh.org/2008/02/20/antitrust-laws-actually-promote-monopoly/

Above is a worthy discussion about the anti-consumer / pro big and connected business fraud that is anti-monopoly legislation with Ron Paul. While the video is some 25 years old, the content is perfectly valid today (if not also a testament to the consistency of Ron Paul since then).

 

A great myth perpetuated by those in government and many in academia is that absent regulation, the free market will do its utmost to increase profits via anti-consumer actions, with one of the biggest crimes being the formation of monopolies. As such, we endure day after day, year after year, ever more corrective reactions from Congress in the form of regulations that we are told will curtail the natural exploitative faults of the free market, thus improving the economy as a result.

 

Yet, when you dig just a little beneath the surface, you’ll find that’s an assumption built on a faulty premise. What you’ll see is that these many legislated regulatory actions are actually fixing the economic / market reaction to a previous legislated intrusion, and in many cases serve not to be pro consumer, but rather pro-big business and very much anti free market competition. These laws not only often fix prices artificially high (either outright or via anti-trade legislation), they flat out create massive hurdles — bureaucratic or otherwise — that serve as barriers to entry for legitimate free market competition.

 

A great example today is all the cries for further regulating the credit, banking, housing, and mortgage systems to “prevent further abuse and recklessness.” In reality, the bubble that is bursting was created by a money monopoly granted to the Federal Reserve and its many member banks, who are quite literally entitled to legally counterfeit. They call it fractional reserve banking, but in no uncertain terms the entire banking system engages in the constant and ongoing printing of money and credit out of thin air, which they in turn use to create loans and mega finance deals.

 

It was the artificial price fixing of credit and money well below the natural market rate that enabled and fueled the housing, mortgage, and credit bubbles into the stratosphere. Had the rate of money instead been free market controlled by a more honest currency, as demand for hot money loans increased, rates would have risen, nipping each of those bubbles in the bud. Instead, the printing presses of the banking system kicked into high gear and the bubble was off to the races.

 

Now that said bubble is in its corrective phase (yes, painful but natural and necessary to correct the massive clustering of errors it permitted), the Banking system wants to print more money and credit to bail-out the very problems their created thanks to their monopoly on money and credit. Meanwhile, our trusty servants in Congress are getting in the act by engineering stimulus packages while promoting even more legislation that will “fix the banking system.” Others want to regulate ratings agencies who failed to properly measure risk, failing to understand that prior regulation prevented competition from entering the market and restructured / bastardized the system into its current highly corrupted form. Yet the illiterate among us shout loudly from the rooftops, the Capital’s steps, or their media perches blaming “the free market” for creating this folly. Bunk! Absolute Bunk!

 

Alas, save for one or two in Congress — Ron Paul being the only politician getting any press, and now barely any at all — NOBODY bothers to address the real manufacturers and profiteers of the crisis: The massive banking cartel led by the privately owned Federal Reserve and its many member banks. Their highly lucrative monopoly is preserved, and so too are their highly important contributions and lobbying efforts that keep most of Congress firmly in power.

 

In other cases “pro competition” legislation creates a ramshackle set of rules that hamstring the particular sector of the economy so badly that the consequent market place is the consumer equivalent of some hodge-podge Frankenstein creature. The health care system in the U.S. is a prime example, where the heavily regulated byproduct — which is nothing but what’s left of the free market attempting to create something usable given the draconian rules governing it — ends up being a real disaster for consumers. Prices keep getting more expensive rather than cheaper, and the consumer continues to feel ever more compromised — which is the exact opposite of the norm in a truly free market.

 

Meanwhile, those major players that are most politically connected and capable of lobbying are the ones who dominate the industry, while the environment is so hostile to new entries that few bother to attempt to compete. The result? A defacto, legislatively-created monopoly for major hospital conglomerates, pharmaceutical companies, and regional health insurers. All levels of government get into the act, each exacting a toll to gain access, and each limiting the free market from doing what it otherwise might.

 

And, yet, these same politicians who soak up dolling out favors at the trough have the gal to blame the free market for being inadequate at providing good consumer products when what we’re all stuck with is a Frankenstein of their own making!

 

Meanwhile, the uninformed and socially motivated consumers and voters see the system only on the surface, and they demand change. The politicians are quick to blame free enterprise, and they propose more solutions to solve the problems created by decades of prior meddling. Meanwhile, steering the new legislation are the same ones benefiting from the old. They’ll have the economies of scale to deal with the new rules, while smaller players will invariably be knocked from the playing field. It’s always the same story.

 

This is a mess. Remember, if government forcing us into one of their solutions is the answer, you’re asking the wrong question! A true free market (one where businesses, industry trade groups, and other special interests are prohibited from hijacking freedom and economic resources in their favor) is naturally competing with itself to deliver ever more affordable quality to consumers. The natural tendency always is a better product for a lower price as entrepreneurs continually attempt to redefine efficiencies and opportunity in the search for profits.

 

If you want consumer driven solutions that please the most people, don’t force them into shoe-box solutions created by compromised politicians who are themselves experts only at politics and government. Let the market compete freely and openly, and then — and only then — will order start to be restored to an economy that increasingly is being exposed as systematically rotten to the core, having been slowly eaten from within by special interest parasites steering legislation in their favor.

 

I'm not saying I agree with everything here, just showing that with a little research your arguments have already been touched upon. They've been refuted 25 years ago by Ron Paul and you should study him more before you go raising war against him and his advocates.

[Zig]

Like I said, there is a reason your system has not been used in human history. It does not work and the majority of people see that. Regardless of how you try to twist my words. A free market is not the answer to anything except for companies who want to make maximum profits on the backs it the people. A free market does nothing for the people.

 

You should also stop pretending that libertarianism is in the minority, and your view is in the majority. This is another spin tactic the media uses to marginalize movements. The reality is that people in America aren't for more regulation, more government, more spending, etc. The vast majority of Americans want government out of every aspect of our lives and not controlling us. Whether or not they completely agree with RP's views is debatable, but to insinuate that Americans overwhelmingly support your argument here is ridiculous.

[angelofdeath]

See, AOD you keep going back to how a market functions and say nothing about caring for the people. The bottom line is not the only thing that matters. This is why RP will never be elected. A good elected official takes care if there people. This is something you do not get.

 

please show me an elected official that 'takes care of the people.'

 

not only am i not being taken care of, I DONT WANT TO TAKEN CARE OF.

which is why the only solution is for you and your totalitarian nanny state leviathan government to go your way, and me to go my way. i wont force you to be free, how about you not forcing me to comply to your wishes?

 

 

Like I said, there is a reason your system has not been used in human history. It does not work and the majority of people see that. Regardless of how you try to twist my words. A free market is not the answer to anything except for companies who want to make maximum profits on the backs it the people. A free market does nothing for the people.[/quoote]

 

 

once again, repeated basic generality on your part to try to refute a complex argument on my part.

 

ILL SPELL IT OUT ONE MORE TIME. THE FREE MARKET IS SIMPLY VOLUNTARY INTERACTIONS AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS. THE FIRST MOMENT ANYONE BARTERED, TRADED, SOLD OR BOUGHT A PRODUCT OR SERVICE, WAS THE FIRST TIME WE HAD A FREE MARKET.

 

 

Not once have you addressed taking care of the people. You talk about liberty, but you can not see that in a free market, liberty is gone and the bottom line of companies is in it's place.

 

we already had this stupid ass discussion. it was very long. i said 'there are alternatives to using a coercive state to rob people to give it to other people.' you said there isnt and even said that without the coercive state you would NOT engage in voluntary charity.

 

would you rather be actually poor in a third world country, or would you rather be poor in america? capitalism has made it so the poor can have computers, cars, air conditioning, own their own home and voluntarily pay 200$ a month for cable.

 

not only that but your 'poor' statistics are so skewed you might as well not even cite them. first and foremost they base the 'rich' persons income on their 'net' pay. matters not that they are paying 45-60% of this in taxes. do you look at your net pay or do you look at your bring home pay? what matters to you and affects you? exactly.

and the 'poor' income DOES NOT INCLUDE GOVERNMENT BENEFITS OR SUBSIDIES. so until you and your gang of thieves in government can present to me some honest stats (probably no such thing, but for conversational purposes) on who is actually 'poor,' and who is having 10 kids with different fathers driving escalades, talking on iphones and paying 200$ a month for cable while receiving welfare, then you can come talk to me.

 

 

my offer still stands. im willing, as a moderate, to allow you to institute your policies in DC. lets start small. you can create a socialist utopia in DC and once you eliminate poverty, crime, etc, etc then we can talk about moving to other parts of the country.

 

hint: your policies have been in affect for 100 years. we still have all these things and they are getting worse. good job.

 

it used to be in america you have the opportunity to be whatever you wanted to be, limited by your own abilities and aspirations. now everything we do is regulated, controlled and taxed by the government.

 

thanks to your mindset, we now have the food police shutting down KIDS LEMONADE STANDS!

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/8243-midway-ga-police-shut-down-kids-lemonade-stand

 

 

'what about the poor!!???!!'

 

how about making it so the poor actually have the incentive to work and how about making it so they can start a business without the stasi state in the state capitols and in DC smacking them back down

[angelofdeath]

The way you are advocating benefits the few more than you understand. When the people have liberty is when they can protect themselves from monopoly and corruption. Ron Paul was discussing these topics 25 years ago...

 

Antitrust Laws Actually Promote Monopoly

http://www.lppgh.org/2008/02/20/antitrust-laws-actually-promote-monopoly/

 

 

I'm not saying I agree with everything here, just showing that with a little research your arguments have already been touched upon. They've been refuted 25 years ago by Ron Paul and you should study him more before you go raising war against him and his advocates.

 

"but you see zig, all this is based on false bottoms and hypotheticals. because RP doesnt 'care about the poor' every other view he puts forth is meaningless. and since i dont understand anything at all about economics and the laws of such, i'll keep on saying the 5 second talking points i stole off another message board posted by someone else." - Cilone

 

:cool:

[CILONE/SK]

Libertarians are in the minority. Democrats and republicans are in the majority. There is no denying this. To deny this is a blatant lie. They have only once received more then 1% of a presidential vote. They have no members in congress, the senate, and no governors. Even RP had to switch parties from them to stay elected.

 

If this is not a minority, what is?

[Zig]

"but you see zig, all this is based on false bottoms and hypotheticals. because RP doesnt 'care about the poor' every other view he puts forth is meaningless. and since i dont understand anything at all about economics and the laws of such, i'll keep on saying the 5 second talking points i stole off another message board posted by someone else." - Cilone

 

:cool:

 

I mean it sounds to me like the guy drank the anti-Ron Paul kool-aid and actually knows nothing about his policies or his ideals. All of his arguments are based off talking points from the media, and none of what he is saying even breaks that surface level. It can easily be researched, it takes literally maybe 5-10 minutes to find 25 year old rebuttals to his weak arguments. He's probably a gung-ho Obama supporter who is spiteful towards Ron Paul because a) RP is a GOP candidate and b) RP is critical of the Obama administration. I notice most of RP's biggest enemies are Obama supporters. There is nothing wrong with that though imo, and I'd rather see another Obama presidency over any other candidate if it isn't going to be RP... but if you are going to align yourself as an enemy of RP and his advocates you should at least do yourself a favor and actually study him and know what you're talking about before you start trying to wage internet warfare.

[angelofdeath]

Libertarians are in the minority. Democrats and republicans are in the majority. There is no denying this. To deny this is a blatant lie. They have only once received more then 1% of a presidential vote. They have no members in congress, the senate, and no governors. Even RP had to switch parties from them to stay elected.

 

If this is not a minority, what is?

 

i agree with you the true libertarians a minority. no doubt. no need to remind you that this country was founded by a tireless 3% of the population that was actively involved in resisting british tyranny. ideological revolutions are nearly always 'won' by tireless minorities.

i think what zig is trying to say is that most americans lean libertarian as they are finally realizing government is simply to big. '

 

RP started out as a republican, he left the republican party to run as a libertarian in their party for 1 year, then went back to being a republican. he only to run for president in 88.

 

you must also not confuse all libertarians as being Libertarian party members. there is a difference between being an ideological libertarian or leaning in this manner and being part of that party. the LP is a joke. they nominated bob barr last election. 'nuff said.

[CILONE/SK]

AOD you keep making my point. All you care about is yourself and the bottom line. America is for all Americans, not just you. As a politician, they have to look out for all their people, even if some people do not want that like you. This causes rules and regulations to be put in place to take care of the people, because without them companies will run rampant and ruin this country. Also it means that you can reasonably isolate yourself from everyone else, but you can not create your own country, which is what you are basically implying. We as Americans have to live together in one way or another.

 

you can keep repeating your free market nonsense, but reality is that it will never be proven (because it cant) and it will never happen and people like you will stay in the minority.

 

It is kind of concerning how you seem to hare the ideals of America so much, yet you are constantly saying you are for them. Everything you say will lead to the downfall of America financially faster then any other option out there. And with they way you all are advocating not raising the debt ceiling proves that. By not raising it, it will force a depression on America and anything that does that is bad for the American people.

[CILONE/SK]

I mean it sounds to me like the guy drank the anti-Ron Paul kool-aid and actually knows nothing about his policies or his ideals. All of his arguments are based off talking points from the media, and none of what he is saying even breaks that surface level. It can easily be researched, it takes literally maybe 5-10 minutes to find 25 year old rebuttals to his weak arguments. He's probably a gung-ho Obama supporter who is spiteful towards Ron Paul because a) RP is a GOP candidate and b) RP is critical of the Obama administration. I notice most of RP's biggest enemies are Obama supporters. There is nothing wrong with that though imo, and I'd rather see another Obama presidency over any other candidate if it isn't going to be RP... but if you are going to align yourself as an enemy of RP and his advocates you should at least do yourself a favor and actually study him and know what you're talking about before you start trying to wage internet warfare.

 

Zig you drank the Kool aid. You must not realize that you can find anything on the Internet. You find a rebuttal, but it is from RP. That sort of defeats the point, since I am sure that RP is not going to say that he is wrong. That is like asking someone to explain why he wrong about something he believes fully. It just will not happen and does not make sense.

 

BTW I have looked deeply into him and I think he would be horrible for America, but good for business.

 

Do not write off what I am saying by assuming I do not know what I am talking about. You are the one who keeps bringing campaign rhetoric into this.

[Decyferon]

just as devils advocate but if it was just 3% of the population what gave them the right to talk for the other 97%? I know they stood up and did something but if the numbers were that low then how do they know that that is what people wanted?

 

just throwing it out there mainly because this thread is getting a bit tiresome.

[CILONE/SK]

^ English guy has a good point

[angelofdeath]

just as devils advocate but if it was just 3% of the population what gave them the right to talk for the other 97%? I know they stood up and did something but if the numbers were that low then how do they know that that is what people wanted?

 

just throwing it out there mainly because this thread is getting a bit tiresome.

 

great curve ball.

 

the 'three percent' theory is that 3% of the population was all that were actively engaged in resisting oppression from GB in the 18th century. it is estimated that an additional 10% of the population aided the 3%. another 20% supported the cause ideologically, but didnt actively participate. 1/3 were loyalists and another 1/3 didnt care either way. so essentially the revolution was fought and oppression thrown from their shoulders by 1/3 of the population.

 

your point your making about 'how do we know what the people wanted...' can be said about ANY level of democracy less than 100% unanimous consent. the part that is ignored in the equation is that the people already had representative local governments. so to the extent that you believe a government is legitimate, (im not touching this in this debate) it was done by the republican principles of the day.

[angelofdeath]

AOD you keep making my point. All you care about is yourself and the bottom line. America is for all Americans, not just you. As a politician, they have to look out for all their people, even if some people do not want that like you. This causes rules and regulations to be put in place to take care of the people, because without them companies will run rampant and ruin this country. Also it means that you can reasonably isolate yourself from everyone else, but you can not create your own country, which is what you are basically implying. We as Americans have to live together in one way or another.

 

you can keep repeating your free market nonsense, but reality is that it will never be proven (because it cant) and it will never happen and people like you will stay in the minority.

 

It is kind of concerning how you seem to hare the ideals of America so much, yet you are constantly saying you are for them. Everything you say will lead to the downfall of America financially faster then any other option out there. And with they way you all are advocating not raising the debt ceiling proves that. By not raising it, it will force a depression on America and anything that does that is bad for the American people.

 

since you keep regurgitating the same nonsense...

i'll make one distinct point

 

the down fall of the US government is not the same as the down fall of the american people. just like the down fall of the german government was not the same as the down fall of the german people.

[CILONE/SK]

You are the one who keeps saying the same free market bullshit over and over. You are advocating the demise of America, even if you think it is just the government.

 

I will end with that.