Ron Paul's situation similar to Churchill's before WW2

[RidleyReport]

A controversial political outsider shunned by his own party on the eve of national disaster. A prophet with loyal and dedicated supporters. These phrases ring true for more than one great man. But have enough people heard Paul's warnings to know who they should blame when the bottom falls out? Will they know that our meltdown was caused by the simple fact that Washington under both major parties created and spent too much money?

[Barbara Branden]

Yes, Ron Paul is Winston Churchill, and -- to quote the immortal Dorothy Parker -- I am Marie of Romania.

Barbara

[Chris Grieb]

Barbara; Well said!

[BaalChatzaf]

A controversial political outsider shunned by his own party on the eve of national disaster. A prophet with loyal and dedicated supporters. These phrases ring true for more than one great man. But have enough people heard Paul's warnings to know who they should blame when the bottom falls out? Will they know that our meltdown was caused by the simple fact that Washington under both major parties created and spent too much money?

True. But we survived Lyndon Johnson and his stagflation. The economy was in much worse shape during Lyndon Johnson's administration.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

Yes, Ron Paul is Winston Churchill, and -- to quote the immortal Dorothy Parker -- I am Marie of Romania.

Dorothy Parker was perhaps the sharpest wit in centuries. Only in her time did quips become attributable quotes -- newspapers, books, gossips -- whereas, we have lost all the proudly prejudicial zingers from Jane Austen. Nonetheless, Parker was a rare light.

Ron Paul, however, is somewhat common. Granted that he is a medical doctor and a U.S. Congressman, two noteworthy achievements, he cannot compare to Churchill who did more.

... combat with the Malakand Field Force on the Northwest Frontier, at the Battle of Omdurman in the Sudan and during the Second Boer War in South Africa ... war correspondent. ... many political and cabinet positions... President of the Board of Trade and Home Secretary ... First Lord of the Admiralty, Minister of Munitions, Secretary of State for War and Secretary of State for Air. He also served in the British Army on the Western Front and commanded the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers. During the interwar years, he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer. ... After the outbreak of the Second World War, Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty.

A History of the English-Speaking Peoples is a four-volume history... The Second World War is a six-volume history ...

-- Wikipedia entries for Churchill and Works

Also, I contradict the article of faith that any of "America's problems" are attributable to an "unconstitutional" Federal Reserve Bank and I assert that right now, today, America has a 100% convertible gold-backed currency and has had such for 20 years. In part, this is a result of the intellectual inflluence of Ayn Rand within the Republican Party. It is also largely the result of the failure of that other system which was tried for a few decades, 1933-1987. The point is that the militiamen refuse to admit to simple reality because they have a huge emotional investment in something other than empirical evidence.

Ron Paul's message comes across like communism: almost nice... until you stop and think about what you just heard...

Edited March 8, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta

[Aggrad02]

Also, I contradict the article of faith that any of "America's problems" are attributable to an "unconstitutional" Federal Reserve Bank and I assert that right now, today, America has a 100% convertible gold-backed currency and has had such for 20 years. In part, this is a result of the intellectual inflluence of Ayn Rand within the Republican Party. It is also largely the result of the failure of that other system which was tried for a few decades, 1933-1987. The point is that the militiamen refuse to admit to simple reality because they have a huge emotional investment in something other than empirical evidence.

First why scare "" (Which I am beginning to agree with Shayne are lame, and in my opinion childish) around America's problems and unconstitutional? You have to be able to express yourself in a more mature manner. There are major problems with our economy, and a lot of it stems from the creation of money by the Federal Reserve and the Congress which has inflated our money and increased the amount of money our Congress can spend which has led to irresponsible spending. And there are questions as to the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve having to do with the printing of money and concerning the Commerce Clause.

Second, just because we have been able to trade paper money (or anything else for that matter) for gold since 1987 does not mean that our currency is 100% convertible gold-backed currency. That is like saying my cow is 100% convertible gold-back currency. And if you haven't been following the markets our paper dollars are less and less convertible every day.

Third, I think it is dishonest and immature of you to blast Ron Paul's achievements and call him common (which he probably was before this election, I think you will see that change in the near future, maybe not), then cite a great achievement of Ayn Rand as having influence in the Republican Party which led to the legalization of owning gold. IT WAS Rebulican Congressman RON PAUL that was influenced by Ayn Rand and with along with Jesse Helms CREATED the Gold Commission the early '80's that led to the legalization of gold. Ron Paul has clearly said that his major influences where Ayn Rand and F.A. Hayek. The sole reason that he decided to leave his practice and run for Congress was because Nixon took us off the gold standard and he new how bad the inflation would get.

--Dustan

Edited March 8, 2008 by Aggrad02

[sjw]

America has a 100% convertible gold-backed currency and has had such for 20 years.

You should bring two things into your awareness. One, you are wrong. Two, an error of this kind proves your need to read more and write less.

Shayne

[Mike11]

\

Edited March 9, 2008 by Mike11

[Brant Gaede]

America has a 100% convertible gold-backed currency and has had such for 20 years.

You should bring two things into your awareness. One, you are wrong. Two, an error of this kind proves your need to read more and write less.

Shayne

WTF? The US went completely off the gold standard in 1971 or '72 courtesy of President Nixon.

--Brant

[syrakusos]

You conservatives are so exasperating! The US Mint sells gold coins. If you buy them directly from the Mint, you pay a 7% promotional mark-up, not bad for a retail transastion.

2007 American Eagle Gold Uncirculated One Ounce Coin (Z7A)

Price: $1,045.95

But if you follow the links on the US Mint homepage (www.usmint.gov), you will find this:

The following list of American Eagle and American Buffalo Gold Coin Program retailers is provided as a sampling of local, as well as national, American Eagle and American Buffalo Gold Coin Program retailers. Additional companies may be found in your local telephone book under "Coins" or "Gold."

This is a secondary market. There are a few specially chosen wholesalers who under strict regulation buy the mass products of the Mint and then move them along on a supply and demand basis to other dealers. Regardless of what the coins cost originally, you can buy them today at your local coin store for close to the spot price of gold. But, that starts at the Mint, which also sells them on the same basis, albeit to a few large wholesalers.

In short, the US Treasury sells US Gold coins pegged to the market price of gold and they accept Federal Reserve Notes (or transfers of same) for their gold coins -- also silver and platinum coins. And they sell several kinds of gold coins, including the new gold Buffalo which is 24kt. Thus, the US has had a working 100% gold-backed currency since 1987.

Edited March 9, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta

[Greybird]

Barbara: Not at all well said. Yet, also, sadly, not at all surprising.

Ridley: The similarities between Paul and Churchill end with form (of their respective jeremiads), and involve not one particle of substance.

I'd say that Ralph Raico managed to summarize, in eight pages written over thirty years ago (PDF file), all that needs to be said about Churchill, culminating with an apt summary and a damning irony — or two.

[...] Let us try to sum up the career of this enormously influential man. In Winston Churchill we have, above anything else, a militarist, one who yearned for even more wars than actually occurred; a jaundiced personality whose nose only began to twitch when there was bloody conflict afoot; a decadent who could refer to the years without war as "the bland skies of peace and platitude." We have a schemer clever enough to have embroiled America in two world wars in defense of the British Empire (he used our people in his plans as he might have the Greeks and the Turks), and the great master of stomach-turning Anglo-Saxon cant, the apotheosis of the tradition of Palmerston and Edward Grey, of Wilson, Stimson, and Roosevelt - but nonetheless a foolish and futile politician (even from his own standpoint), one of the main destroyers of the balance of power in Europe and East Asia, and the gravedigger of the Empire of the State he served. We have a Man of Blood, whose most characteristic acts were to arrange that the Lusitania would be sunk, and to send the planes winging to set Hamburg and Dresden on fire - perhaps the main architect of the system of total war which may yet put an end to the human race. And we have, when all is said and done as far as his beloved country is concerned, a mere social imperialist and politico without principle, in the tacky line of those who have made the England of Gladstone's time into what it is today.

Yes, truly, the Man of the Century.

For a fitting epitaph, there's a choice. Either the one that seems demanded: If you seek his monument, look around.

Or the one I prefer: He was better than Hitler.

[Aggrad02]

You conservatives are so exasperating!

In short, the US Treasury sells US Gold coins pegged to the market price of gold and they accept Federal Reserve Notes (or transfers of same) for their gold coins -- also silver and platinum coins. And they sell several kinds of gold coins, including the new gold Buffalo which is 24kt. Thus, the US has had a working 100% gold-backed currency since 1987.

Michael,

I don't know what you consider yourself. But this strange idea of yours is so exasperating.

From wikipedia:

The gold standard is a monetary system in which the standard economic unit of account is a fixed weight of gold. Under the gold standard, currency issuers guarantee to redeem notes, upon demand, in that amount of gold. Governments that employ such a fixed unit of account, which will redeem their notes to other governments in gold, share a fixed-currency relationship. The gold standard is not currently used by any government or central bank, having been replaced completely by fiat currency.

In economics, fiat currency or fiat money is money that has value primarily because a government demands it in payment of taxes, and that government has credible enforcement of its demand.

The taxing government's choice of the form or origin of money it accepts may be somewhat arbitrary but the unifying feature of all fiat money is that whatever form or origin, the market demand for it is dominated by the taxing government's demand for it in payment of taxes. For example, a gold coin may be considered fiat currency if its face value -- the value it has in payment of taxes -- is higher than its market value as gold metal. There has never been a form money that has retained its value as fiat money once the backing government's tax enforcement powers have waned. Therefore, the term “fiat” money is also often used to distinguish it from representative money, which is pegged or fixed to a quantity or mass of precious metal. While representative money is often associated with a legal requirement that the bank of issue pay in fixed weights of a given precious metal or (in theory) fixed amount of any other precious good, fiat money's value is fixed only to its value in transactions controlled by government authority, such as taxation.

The problem with your little crazy theory is that our money is backed by gold, it is not. Our money is not fixed to a certain amount of gold. When I get dollars in the form of payment there is no set amount of gold that I can trade it for. Our money is fiat.

Now on the other hand I can trade my money for gold, but that value is set by retail seller. The seller decides how much they value their gold compared to how much they value my dollars and if they value them enough they will trade me their gold. But they do not have to or they may want more or less depending on various factors. So you are correct that our dollars are convertible to gold, as that is the definition of money, something that you use to facilitate trade.

from wikipedia:

Money is any token or other object that functions as a medium of exchange that is socially and legally accepted in payment for goods and services and in settlement of debts

See I can use anything for trade, my cow, a pile of rocks, or even my own labor and demand in trade for those values, gold if my trading partner has it and values my cow or rocks or labor. But that does not mean that my cow or rocks or labor is backed by gold. It is the same with our fiat Dollars.

Hope this helps you,

Dustan

BTW: For more on this subject read:

Ayn Rand: Capitalism the Unkown Ideal

Ludwig Von Mises: The Theory of Money and Credit

or even:

Ron Paul: Gold, Peace and Prosperity: The Birth of a New Currency

Ron Paul: The Case for Gold: A Minority Report of the US Gold Commission

Ron Paul: Ten Myths about Paper Money

[syrakusos]

Here is one theory:

Congress has the right to coin money and fix the value thereof. So, every day, after the calls to order and the prayers, the Congress announces what the current fix will be. For many years, they used the same number over and over. Once, they made a single dramatic change. Lately, they just use the New York and London Spot Prices.

Here is another theory:

Instead, today, the US Mint strikes US Gold coins and sells them at an open window for US Dollars.

What's the difference?

My point is that the Gold-Guns-and-God crowd that rails against the Federal Reserve as an agency of evil ignores the obvious fact that gold and dollars are freely convertible. The government has a fiat currency, true. We have gold coins, also true. The plain fact is that the world is not suffering from an international financial conspiracy against hard money.

There are many kinds of money.

Our definitions of it need to change with the ways we use it.

Credit cards are not considered "money" because with each purchase, there is a corresponding debt. What happens, though, when you use your credit card to buy a Gift Card? The gift card _is_ money and the recipient is now detached from your debt. Moreover, the extension of credit itself -- massive in our society -- is actually a rational extension of credit as money.

Coins and currency (M-zero) is almost irrelevant. About 5% to 8% of the economy moves in cash, much of that in the underground or off-the-books markets. Gateway and Dell do not need coins and currency to buy chips and boards.

Likewise the Fed has quit tallying M4 a while back. "Long term" Certificates of Deposit are now no longer different from mere savings, the "savings passbook" having gone extinct.

Again, my point is that the Ron Paul-GGG Faction only engage in mystical incantations about money and do not actually analyze the empirical facts via an internally consisten theory, i.e., they are not Objective about money.

Edited March 9, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta

[sjw]

It's disturbing to think that anyone could possess a combination of ignorance and arrogance to such a degree as Marotta. Well, on second thought, a lot of Objectivists are like that.

[Wolf DeVoon]

The economy was in much worse shape during Lyndon Johnson's administration.

Wrong as usual, Bob. U.S. society was in an uproar in the 60's, and LBJ marginally increased spending at home and You Know Where, but it was Nixon and Kissinger who tanked the greenback by arming Israel. Remember the Oil Shocks of 74-79. Nothing to do with LBJ. And yes, we're in much worse trouble today than during Lyndon Johnson's administration (1963-68). Get your facts straight, bub.

"Monetary policy on the asset side of the balance sheet" is a bit too anodyne a description of what's going on here though. The Fed has gotten into an entirely new line of business, and on a massive scale. Prior to the introduction of TAF, direct loans from the Fed to banks, including the discount window lending and repos, amounted to less than $40B, the majority of which were repos collateralized by Treasury securities. By the end of this month, the Federal Reserve will have more than $200B of exposure in its new role as Wall Street's genial pawnbroker. Assuming the liability side of the Fed's balance sheet is held roughly constant, more than a fifth of the Fed's balance sheet will be direct loans to banks, almost certainly against collateral not backed by the full faith and credit of the US government (and beyond that we just don't know). This raises a whole host of issues.

- Steve Waldman,

Repo Agreements and Covert Nationalization

, Mar 9, 2008

Edited March 10, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Aggrad02]

Here is one theory:

Congress has the right to coin money and fix the value thereof. So, every day, after the calls to order and the prayers, the Congress announces what the current fix will be. For many years, they used the same number over and over. Once, they made a single dramatic change. Lately, they just use the New York and London Spot Prices.

Totally False. If you own any gold coins, which from this conversation I am guessing not, you can read that it clearly has a dollar amount set by congress stamped into the coin. For instance my one ounce gold coins are stamped $50. If I try to pay my taxes with them the government accepts them at the fixed value of $50, if I were to take them to my bank and try to deposit them they would deposit them at $50 the value set by congress. But if I were to take two $20 and a $10 to the government there is no way they will exchange them for a 1 ounce eagle or buffalo.

Also the Constitution clearly says that only gold and silver can be used to mint money. You can also read the Federalist papers and the words of the Founding Fathers themselves on their opinion of fiat currency.

Instead, today, the US Mint strikes US Gold coins and sells them at an open window for US Dollars.

Here you are correct. The US Mint in respect to selling gold/silver/platinum bullion is no different than Credit Suisse or any other independent mint and has no connection what so ever with the fiat currency produced by the Federal Reserve, which is an independent corporation, controlled only partly by the government but owned by the banks that have money on deposit.

My point is that the Gold-Guns-and-God crowd that rails against the Federal Reserve as an agency of evil ignores the obvious fact that gold and dollars are freely convertible. The government has a fiat currency, true. We have gold coins, also true. The plain fact is that the world is not suffering from an international financial conspiracy against hard money.

Man what a collectivist you are. Trying to subtly group everyone who advocates fiscal responsibility, the right to bear arms and theist together.

First of all what problem do you have with fiscal responsibility? Apparently you like having your value store stolen from you and your government overspend by creating money. Or do you have faith the government will be responsible to spend only what they collect and guard the value of your money?

Second what is wrong with wanting to keep arms to defend you self? Are you also going to put your faith in the government to keep you safe.

Third as an atheist I find it very insulting that you lump the above virtues (fiscal responsibility and the defense of your own person) with a mystical faith, it seems like you are the one that has the mystical faith in the government.

Once again you ignore my comparison. My cow is freely convertible into dollars, does that mean that fiat currency is backed by cows?

And the international financial companies did have a conspiracy against hard money and they carried it out, hence we don't have it anymore. Also the size of government as been directly proportional to the amount of fiat currency printed by the government, this has caused great trouble for us (Including social programs and war). If you cannot understand the problems caused by fiat currency in our modern times and through out the ancient then either you need to study more (a good place is the reading list that I gave you), or just give up.

Coins and currency (M-zero) is almost irrelevant. About 5% to 8% of the economy moves in cash, much of that in the underground or off-the-books markets. Gateway and Dell do not need coins and currency to buy chips and boards.

See what you do not understand is that the reason that Coins and currency are irrelevant is not because how people use it (electronic transactions vs physical exchange) but what they represent. You don't seem to understand is that numbers in a computer and a paper dollar bill are equally backed by nothing.

BTW: There is such things as electronic gold. And can be exchanged in the same way.

Again, my point is that the Ron Paul-GGG Faction only engage in mystical incantations about money and do not actually analyze the empirical facts via an internally consistent theory, i.e., they are not Objective about money.

Once again you are wrong and provide no justification for your remark, so either you are intentionally lying (which I surely hope not and doubt) or you are truly uninformed and need to educate yourself.

The whole Objectivist theory of money is taken from Austrian Economics, as pretty much presented by Von Mises. Ayn Rand greatly admired Von Mises and got a lot of her economic philosophy from this group of economist. Ron Paul studied the same economist that Ayn did. As a matter of fact Ron Paul help create the Von Mises Institute. He also traveled to Austria to better study the subject.

Also Ron Paul has written three books on this subject, one for the Congress, to say that he does not Objectively analyze the monetary policy is an absurd statement.

It seems that the only mystical incantations are your ideas about monetary policy and what others; Ron Paul and your GGG group (Does that make them GGGG?), believe about money, because apparently you have not read what they have written because if you had you would not misrepresent their positions (actually you have not misrepresented their positions that would have taken an actual analysis of their positions which you did not do, you just attacked them as mystical with no justification).

--Dustan

[syrakusos]

Dustan, I agree with just about everything you said about gold and dollars. It is true that AGE says 50 DOLLARS. That is the legal tender value of the coin. It is somewhat incongruous, but not unexpected considering their philosophical (is-but-isn't-really) basis. Currently, we have few other legal tender limitations on coinage. However, Congress set different legal tender limits in the past for cents, 2-cents, etc., so while 100 cents made a dollar, 5000 would not make $50, oddly enough. The point is that regardless of what different agencies of the government claim at different times, the fact remains that the US Mint sells US gold coins for US dollars. What else would it take for there to be a gold-backed currency?

Also the Constitution clearly says that only gold and silver can be used to mint money.

Actually, Article I, Section 10. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

The first coins of the new republic were, in fact, copper cents. Under the current federal constitution, copper coins were behind dimes, but ahead of gold, by a couple of years in terms of production. That opens another debate entirely. Actually using gold coins for commerce is a bad idea. As they wear, they lose value. Who makes up the loss? It is not inconsiderable. The best solution would be durable tokens exchangible for gold on demand, but not precious in and of themselves.

The US Mint in respect to selling gold/silver/platinum bullion is no different than Credit Suisse or any other independent mint and has no connection what so ever with the fiat currency produced by the Federal Reserve, which is an independent corporation, controlled only partly by the government but owned by the banks that have money on deposit.

I agree 100% that the actual status of the Federal Reserve Bank is mired in the non-objective (is-but-isn't) nature of the system. It evolved that way over two centuries, the one before 1912 and the one after. All we can say today is that it is what it is: the central bank of the US government. That's how it works.

Man what a collectivist you are. Trying to subtly group everyone who advocates fiscal responsibility, the right to bear arms and theist together.

Yes, and it is so easy to do. I have at this for 40 years, since I was teenager in Young Americans for Freedom. The issues were the same then as they are now. That's why they call themselves "conservatives": they never change.

I do not have my "store of value" stolen from me. The govement does what it does and I am cognizant of that and I act accordingly. There are many stores of value from cows to collectibles. I store my values as I see fit.

I certainly do not put my faith in the government to protect me. I think my cameo speaks volumes on that issue. We could open another can of worms on whether or not it is even metaphysically possible for the government to do that. That said, I agree with Ayn Rand that the case for legal ownership of handguns is not clear, given the present social context. (Rand assumed that the only purpose of a handgun is to coerce another person.) Moreover, we no longer depend on hunting for food. (I have relatives who do, so I am aware of that.) The purpose for the Second Amendment was to ensure the militias. If you want to own a gun or a rocket-launcher or an atom bomb, join your state militia and report for drills and assemblies when called. Fight floods and forest fires, too, since that is also a task given to the militia. Otherwise, what do you need a gun for?

Your cows (Ag Grad 2002) are freely convertible into dollars and gold and wheat, but not at a government pay window... or perhaps so. You might know a bit more about that than most of us. There is a deeper truth here, one that I trust you will appreciate. Older forms do not disappear. There was a time when cows were money and about 100 years ago, it was thought that the first coins were made on that standard, 1 gold shekel = 1 cow or perhaps 1 bronze mina = 1 cow. We still see this exchange of (huge) barter lots at the Chicago Merc.

And the international financial companies did have a conspiracy against hard money and they carried it out, hence we don't have it anymore.

But we do! You have yours and I have mine and others here have theirs. The government sells the stuff. You can get Krugerrands and Austrian Philharmonics and British Sovereigns. There's no end of it in gold, silver, platinum and other precious metals as well. The problem with hard money is that it does not travel very fast. I agree with you that there are businesses that carry e-gold. About five or six years ago, I sold some articles to a libertarian website, got paid in e-gold, and used it to buy a facsmile edition of Noah Webster's dictionary of the American language from a Christian bookstore. As far as I can tell, there is a strong hard-money economy out there.

The size of the government, however, has little to do with fiat money. I will grant you fully that fiat made this painless. The alternatives were painful. Before the collapse of communism, Romania was one of the few nations with no debt. Romania had no foreign debt. Romania's government lived on its taxes. Romania's books balanced. The consequence is that the people were so impoverished that when the govenment fell, it took them about two days to shoot the Ceacescus. Even the East Germans got off lighter. So, rather than face that option, most governments prefer to run up their debts in order to finance the expansions -- which everyone clamors for. THAT is the real cause of big government. People want it. Thus, the challenge to us is philosophical, not political.

Read the constitutions of the world. They all sound nice. Here in Michigan we have an effort to create a part-time legislature. But I lived in New Mexico, pardner, and I know that a part-time legislature is not a bulwark against socialism. People get the government they want. Period.

The whole Objectivist theory of money is taken from Austrian Economics, as pretty much presented by Von Mises. Ayn Rand greatly admired Von Mises and ...

I understand and appreciate that. When I got my scholar's edition of Human Action, I donated my previous edition to my employer's library. I was working for Coin World as their international editor. I pretty much agree with von Mises and I always benefit from reading Human Action. However, there are a few points... One of my interest areas is the origins of coinage in particular and money in general. Von Mises was wrong on that. No one else in that arena has been right. The truth has been established slowly with empirical evidence, but the rationalist theories do no justice to the topic and prevent clear thinking on the matter. For instance, I have asserted and attempted to demonstrate here and elsewhere that money can be a Crusoe Concept. Just like morality, alone on an island Robinson Crusoe would need money. Most "Austrians" just quote the Wikipedia in response, but the fact remains.

Our disagreement is not so much about commodity money and mostly about Ron Paul. I voted for him when he ran for President. However, that is about as far as it goes. He's a nice guy, a good doctor, a capable Congressman. It's not so much him as his supporters. We won't even get into the racist stuff. Maybe he believes it. Maybe he doesn't. What counts to me is that I don't.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta

[Matus1976]

I'd say that Ralph Raico managed to summarize, in eight pages written over thirty years ago (PDF file), all that needs to be said about Churchill, culminating with an apt summary and a damning irony — or two.

(deleted absurd churchill rant)

What a laughingly ridiculous assement of Churchill, though not at all surprising coming from the idiotic mises pacifist libertarians camp. I find it odd that this author spends so much time condeming Churchill for fighting the war which stopped Hitler, and yet still acknowledges that he was 'better than Hitler' If Churchill was merely a warmonger and not an adament defender of justice and freedom, than 'Greybird' and this Ralph Raico are just nihilistic death worshipping aboslute pacificists who despise their own existence so much that they'll pave the way for every murderous tyrant to rise to power, and not merely misinformed idealists who mistakingly value peace more than justice and freedom.

[Aggrad02]

Okay Michael,

I appreciate your in depth response, and I better understand what you are saying. I wish that you could have made some of these points earlier but that is fine. I would also like to apologize if I was a little harsh. I am sorry.

Now for the things that I still disagree with:

the fact remains that the US Mint sells US gold coins for US dollars. What else would it take for there to be a gold-backed currency?

For the United States to have a gold back currency, the Treasury would have to either exchange paper dollars for a set amount of gold that is determined at the time of the creation of that paper dollar and which does not change, or at the minimum set the dollar to fixed amount of gold which does not change and have on reserve at the Treasury that amount of gold.

And actually they could use any commodity or mix of commodities.

Actually using gold coins for commerce is a bad idea. As they wear, they lose value. Who makes up the loss? It is not inconsiderable. The best solution would be durable tokens exchangible for gold on demand, but not precious in and of themselves.

I agree 100%.

I do not have my "store of value" stolen from me. The govement does what it does and I am cognizant of that and I act accordingly. There are many stores of value from cows to collectibles. I store my values as I see fit.

I would say that you do, we all do. I am not just talking about the money that someone may have saved, but their salaries. When you have high inflation, salaries and incomes do not stay current with inflation, prices rise and your standard of life goes down. When the government needs more than they have, they create money which decreases the value of all other money in circulation (whether computer digits or paper dollars). This is basically theft.

I certainly do not put my faith in the government to protect me. I think my cameo speaks volumes on that issue. We could open another can of worms on whether or not it is even metaphysically possible for the government to do that. That said, I agree with Ayn Rand that the case for legal ownership of handguns is not clear, given the present social context. (Rand assumed that the only purpose of a handgun is to coerce another person.) Moreover, we no longer depend on hunting for food. (I have relatives who do, so I am aware of that.) The purpose for the Second Amendment was to ensure the militias. If you want to own a gun or a rocket-launcher or an atom bomb, join your state militia and report for drills and assemblies when called. Fight floods and forest fires, too, since that is also a task given to the militia. Otherwise, what do you need a gun for?

Well we disagree about guns. And if Ayn didn't think that we need handguns then I think she was greatly mistaken. The reason why individuals should have hand guns (or any other gun they happen to choose) is to protect themselves from people who do have guns or weapons (whether they have them legally or illegally) who wish to do them harm. Take the example of what happened in New Jersey last year. Two burglars followed a woman and her daughters home, broke into the house, tied up the family (father, mother, older daughter, younger daughter) burglarized the place, then raped the mother and older daughter, then set the house on fire before they left, killing everyone but the mother who managed to escape at the end. If the father or mother or both were carry weapons this probably would not have occurred (maybe still though). You can also take the Virginia Tech shootings or the shooting that just happened in Chicago, all gun free zones where even the campus police are not allowed to carry guns and massacres occurred.

Also, if you read the Federalist Papers and the works of the Founding Fathers, they explicitly cited the tyranny of the government as a reason to keep and bear arms. Now with our modern weaponry I highly doubt that a citizen revolution could over through our government militarily, but that was the original purpose of the second amendment, not to hunt, to to protect your self and property and to protect your self from the government. Why do you think that the collectivist that have had such an impact on our government over the last hundred years want to get rid of citizen ownership of weapons? It is not about crime.

There is a deeper truth here, one that I trust you will appreciate. Older forms do not disappear. There was a time when cows were money and about 100 years ago, it was thought that the first coins were made on that standard, 1 gold shekel = 1 cow or perhaps 1 bronze mina = 1 cow. We still see this exchange of (huge) barter lots at the Chicago Merc.

I was also vaguely aware of this connection, here is a site I found, I am sure there are others:

http://www.billcasselman.com/unpublished_w...w_words_one.htm

The size of the government, however, has little to do with fiat money. I will grant you fully that fiat made this painless. The alternatives were painful.

If it makes it less painful then the size of government has a lot to do with fiat money.

THAT is the real cause of big government. People want it. Thus, the challenge to us is philosophical, not political.

It has to be both. If you concede the realm of politics to the socialist or the fascist, then they win. While we are typing away at a computer or writing articles or even books, they win. Now all of those other things are important, but if you do not have people fighting for freedom within the political sphere then we are doomed.

Read the constitutions of the world. They all sound nice. Here in Michigan we have an effort to create a part-time legislature. But I lived in New Mexico, pardner, and I know that a part-time legislature is not a bulwark against socialism. People get the government they want. Period.

I would say that a part time legislature would be helpful. In Texas we have one that meets only every other year, and they have to cut the session pretty much down to the basics. While not the only bulwark against socialism, it is very helpful. I wish our US Congress was only part time.

For instance, I have asserted and attempted to demonstrate here and elsewhere that money can be a Crusoe Concept. Just like morality, alone on an island Robinson Crusoe would need money. Most "Austrians" just quote the Wikipedia in response, but the fact remains.

Sounds interesting. Do you a have a link to any of your articles/essays on this subject, or could you email them. I would gladly read them.

Our disagreement is not so much about commodity money and mostly about Ron Paul.... It's not so much him as his supporters.

This may be our disagreement and it may not. I do not look at Ron Paul as a figure like I look at Ayn Rand, Hayak or Von Mises. Though he has written a lot of books (some of which are very philosophical, like his book on abortion), I see him more as a force for political change, rather than a force for philosophical change. This goes back to what I said earlier about the political arena and the philosophical area. I think Ron Paul is where they merge. I am not sure how much you have been paying attention to the current election, and when I say paying attention, I do not mean watching CNN/Fox News. Ron Paul has shifted the debate within the Republican Party (for instance he had Huckabee coming out for the abolition of the IRS, where previously he hadn't). But more importantly he has created a coalition of freedom minded individuals. I would bet that such a coalition as not been seen within the freedom movement since Ayn and Nathaniel parted ways. There are people that are coming together across the entire country to effect political change in the name of freedom. They come from various backgrounds and have various interest but the main reason they come together is because they want the government to leave them alone. Some are objectivist, some are libertarians, a lot are Christian and a lot are Atheist and Agnostics. This is one area in which I have been extremely disappointed with the mainstream objectivist. Many on this board have given some support to Ron Paul, but others have come out vehemently against him, and I have no idea why other than they either like the war (like Bob) or for some other reason which I cannot fathom. We have a politician who stands first and foremost for the Constitution and for Freedom. What is so bad about that?

Let me give you an on the ground example from my county. I was one of the original members of the Ron Paul Meetup in my county back in June of last year. It started with a small group of about 15 members. Through educating and campaigning we got another 150 people in our county to join the meetup group and identified 400 individuals in total that supported Ron Paul and freedom. We organized these people on a precinct basis and had them get out the vote and to attend their Republican Precinct Conventions on the day of the election. On primary day, we got 70 freedom minded individuals elected as delegates to the county convention. How many of you know 70 people that are freedom minded in your community that are willing to be politically active? With those individuals we should be able to change the political scene in our county. The great thing is, is that similar things are happening all across the county.

You have to realize that not everyone has read Ayn Rand, and most that do who even like her ideas as presented in the book are not philosophically minded. If you want to make a change in our government, then you have to be apart of the political scene in your area. If you stick to just strict objectivist to form alliances with you will not do anything (especially with the rift in the objectivist movement). You must branch out to people who are freedom minded. That is the only environment in which objectivism can flourish, that of a free society.

Let me end this with two example from my county.

1. Before election day we were sitting around making phone calls at one of our supporters house. One new member of our group was a student. I asked her why she supported Ron Paul and she told me that we need smaller government and more freedom. I asked her what she studied? She said that he major was Journalism but that she really enjoyed Philosophy. I asked her if she had heard of Ayn Rand. She shook her head no. The guy who's house we were at, jumped up ran to his room and brought back a copy of Atlas Shrugged and gave it to her. We told her a little about Rand and how he has effected Ron Paul. Without the political meetup for Ron Paul, there is no way we could have spread this Philosophic ideas to her.

2. On election day, we called a supporter and asked her to attend her precinct convention. She said that she could not because she was handicap and night blind. So we found a 17 year old supporter who could not vote. He volunteered to take her to the convention. I want you to imagine this scene. A 17 year old, taking a 70 year old handicap lady to her precinct convention, all in the name of freedom. If we had more of that going on we would not have the oppressive government that we do.

This movement (the Ron Paul Revolution) was not and is not about Ron Paul. It is about the idea of smaller government and freedom. Ron Paul just happened to be the catalyst that brought people together. In this way Objectivist should have been doing flips. You do not understand how much Ayn Rand has been discussed on the Ron Paul message boards. I will almost wager that the grassroots Ron Paul campaign (not the official campaign but those on the ground) has spread Rand (and other like minded people like Von Mises, Hayak, Bastiat) more than all of the objectivist organizations put together.

--Dustan

[sjw]

Dustin,

When when you buy gold, the government prints money and drives the value of the dollar down, then if you sell or trade that gold, you owe taxes on the amount the government inflated by. They call this "capital gains" even though your gold did not increase in value, the dollar just dropped in value. This is just one of the consequences of the fact that the dollar is not backed by gold--even those who attempt to protect their assets by buying gold are subject to having that gold confiscated through inflation the minute they try to use it.

This is why Marotta's position is a complete and total farce.

Marotta is just as deluded about Ayn Rand's position on gun control. A 10 second internet search turned this up:

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html

Newman: -- and yet at the same time today we see an alarming rise in violent crimes in this country and more and more people applying for gun permits and wanting to protect themselves. Do you see this as a dangerous trend, number one; and number two, do you favor any form of gun control laws?

Rand: I have given it no thought at all and, off-hand, I would say, no, the government shouldn't control guns except in very marginal forms. I don't think it's very important because I don't think it is in physical terms that the decisions and the fate of this country will be determined. If this country falls apart altogether, if the government collapses bankrupt, your having a handgun in your pocket isn't going to save your life. What you would need is ideas and other people who share those ideas and fighting towards a proper civilized government, not handguns for personal protection.

Clearly, Ayn Rand was not for taking away handguns. Here is another link: http://www.theurbangrindblog.com/?p=858.

Ayn Rand herself admitted that she didn't have a thought-out position on guns. If she had thought about it and looked into the varying degrees of need of self-defense that individuals have in different areas, I'm sure she would have been even more pro-gun.

So again, Marotta is utterly wrong. He is a joke. Someone with judgement as bad as his should not be carrying a gun.

Shayne

[Jerry Biggers]

Yes, Ron Paul is Winston Churchill, and -- to quote the immortal Dorothy Parker -- I am Marie of Romania.

Barbara

So,....exactly who then, would be the next "Neville Chamberlain?"

- Barack Hussein Obama??

If so, then as some "prophetess" stated in 1957, "Brothers, you asked for it!"

[BaalChatzaf]

So,....exactly who then, would be the next "Neville Chamberlain?"

- Barack Hussein Obama??

If so, then as some "prophetess" stated in 1957, "Brothers, you asked for it!"

Not a bad simile. Barak as Neville Chamberlain. How about Hillary as Quisling? I haven't figured out what John McCain is similar to. Perhaps Curly from the Three Stooges.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[galtgulch]

This may be our disagreement and it may not. I do not look at Ron Paul as a figure like I look at Ayn Rand, Hayak or Von Mises. Though he has written a lot of books (some of which are very philosophical, like his book on abortion), I see him more as a force for political change, rather than a force for philosophical change. This goes back to what I said earlier about the political arena and the philosophical area. I think Ron Paul is where they merge. I am not sure how much you have been paying attention to the current election, and when I say paying attention, I do not mean watching CNN/Fox News. Ron Paul has shifted the debate within the Republican Party (for instance he had Huckabee coming out for the abolition of the IRS, where previously he hadn't). But more importantly he has created a coalition of freedom minded individuals. I would bet that such a coalition as not been seen within the freedom movement since Ayn and Nathaniel parted ways. There are people that are coming together across the entire country to effect political change in the name of freedom. They come from various backgrounds and have various interest but the main reason they come together is because they want the government to leave them alone. Some are objectivist, some are libertarians, a lot are Christian and a lot are Atheist and Agnostics. This is one area in which I have been extremely disappointed with the mainstream objectivist. Many on this board have given some support to Ron Paul, but others have come out vehemently against him, and I have no idea why other than they either like the war (like Bob) or for some other reason which I cannot fathom. We have a politician who stands first and foremost for the Constitution and for Freedom. What is so bad about that?

Let me give you an on the ground example from my county. I was one of the original members of the Ron Paul Meetup in my county back in June of last year. It started with a small group of about 15 members. Through educating and campaigning we got another 150 people in our county to join the meetup group and identified 400 individuals in total that supported Ron Paul and freedom. We organized these people on a precinct basis and had them get out the vote and to attend their Republican Precinct Conventions on the day of the election. On primary day, we got 70 freedom minded individuals elected as delegates to the county convention. How many of you know 70 people that are freedom minded in your community that are willing to be politically active? With those individuals we should be able to change the political scene in our county. The great thing is, is that similar things are happening all across the county.

You have to realize that not everyone has read Ayn Rand, and most that do who even like her ideas as presented in the book are not philosophically minded. If you want to make a change in our government, then you have to be apart of the political scene in your area. If you stick to just strict objectivist to form alliances with you will not do anything (especially with the rift in the objectivist movement). You must branch out to people who are freedom minded. That is the only environment in which objectivism can flourish, that of a free society.

Let me end this with two example from my county.

1. Before election day we were sitting around making phone calls at one of our supporters house. One new member of our group was a student. I asked her why she supported Ron Paul and she told me that we need smaller government and more freedom. I asked her what she studied? She said that he major was Journalism but that she really enjoyed Philosophy. I asked her if she had heard of Ayn Rand. She shook her head no. The guy who's house we were at, jumped up ran to his room and brought back a copy of Atlas Shrugged and gave it to her. We told her a little about Rand and how he has effected Ron Paul. Without the political meetup for Ron Paul, there is no way we could have spread this Philosophic ideas to her.

2. On election day, we called a supporter and asked her to attend her precinct convention. She said that she could not because she was handicap and night blind. So we found a 17 year old supporter who could not vote. He volunteered to take her to the convention. I want you to imagine this scene. A 17 year old, taking a 70 year old handicap lady to her precinct convention, all in the name of freedom. If we had more of that going on we would not have the oppressive government that we do.

This movement (the Ron Paul Revolution) was not and is not about Ron Paul. It is about the idea of smaller government and freedom. Ron Paul just happened to be the catalyst that brought people together. In this way Objectivist should have been doing flips. You do not understand how much Ayn Rand has been discussed on the Ron Paul message boards. I will almost wager that the grassroots Ron Paul campaign (not the official campaign but those on the ground) has spread Rand (and other like minded people like Von Mises, Hayak, Bastiat) more than all of the objectivist organizations put together.

--Dustan

Yes Dustan you are correct and I have seen what you are advocating first hand in my own involvement with the Ron Paul grassroots activists. Although i disagree with Ron Paul's position on abortion and his intention of reversing Roe v Wade, if he is elected, I am still in favor of him becoming our next president rather than any of the other folks in the race for the same reasons that you state.

I intend to try to become a delegate to the nominating convention at the upcoming caucus in my district in MA. If one can believe anything one reads on a blog or forum or message board Ron Paul supporters are doing their best to also become delegates and are planning a march on Washington D.C. tentatively for June 21st as well as showing up outside the Minneapolis Republican Nominating Convention to hold Ron Paul signs there.

The devotion of Ron Paul supporters is impressive but they all seem to realize that this movement is not just about Ron Paul at all but about their own freedom and changing the direction of the country before it goes over the waterfall because of all the mismanagement.

We do not expect McCain to get the nomination on the first or subsequent ballots despite the fact he might have the requisite number of "virtual" delegates. There are now 19,659 precinct leaders who are working to identify Republican voters who cast ballots for Ron Paul in the primaries.

www.ronpaulmarch.com for details about the march on D.C.

www.dailypaul.com details on the delegate situation

www.ronpaul2008.com is the official website

Ron Paul won re election to his Congressional seat 70 to 30 and will continue to be involved in the upcoming primaries.

This movement will generate campaigns for the Congress and Senate as well.

Bringing troops home from overseas, from Germany, Japan, South Korea and the 130 countries where America has a military presence will enable the Federal budget to be cut almost one trillion dollars a year. As a result abolishing the IRS and the Federal Income Tax will not require any replacement tax at all. Motivates me!

Let me hear the rationale for keeping our military all over the world.

Ron Paul makes it clear that his issues are not limited to particular policies but to transgression of the Constitution. Check out www.GiveMeLiberty.org which is the site of Robert Shultz who has petitioned the government for redress of grievances about going to war without Congressional official Declaration of War, established the Federal Reserve which has no Constitutional authorization, in addition to petitions about the direct tax on income and immigration.

He based his petitions on the last ten words in the First AMendment, and has taken his case up to the Supreme Court which has refused to hear the case, thus, in the minds of some, committing TREASON, because it is the purpose of the SC to interpret the Constitution and failure to do so is tantamount to treason. It goes back to the Magna Carta in which you will find towards the very end the King agrees that if he fails to respond within 40 days to the petitions the people may notify the barons who may seize the King's castles and possessions!

A letter to Quebec in 1774 from the continental congress indicates the intention of the founders to enact similar recourse if petitions are ignored by authorizing that the people can withhold payment of taxes. Naturally our govt has charged Mr. Shultz with an illegal tax evasion scheme. It is worth exploring the petitions and the back and forth to see just how far our country has gone in the direction of a police state. The govt is supposed to be our servant as I recall.

Join us. Become precinct leaders and contact others. www.ronpaul2008.com

Here us a unique opportunity for us to help to regain our freedom. It is as if we were slaves in Egypt and the Red Sea has parted giving us a path to escape from bondage.

Pardon me for becoming melodramatic for a moment. You know what I mean. " For Three Minutes I Felt Free!" comes to mind. It was an Ayn Rand essay about a handful of protestors in Red Square who were arrested and imprisoned. We are not in any way in a similar situation, unless you sign one of MR. Shultz petitions and the fail to pay your taxes! He makes it clear you can sign and still pay your taxes. He has been asked to supply the govt with the names and addresses and emails of the petitioners.

I am sufficiently intimidated to continue to pay my taxes but is beginning to hurt.

Join the Ron Paul R3volution.

Wm

[syrakusos]

... Marotta's position is a complete and total farce. ... Marotta is utterly wrong. He is a joke.

Shayne, I am happy to see that you appreciate my sense of humor ! Here is a joke for you, but it's like a knock-knock, because you have to complete it.

I say: You buy gold from the government.

You say: When when you buy gold, the government prints money...

and I ask: Where is the connection between [gold:out and dollars:in] and [the government printing money]?

And you reply: ...

(Get it? )

[galtgulch]

While you guys pontificate or elucidate or philosophize the activists and freedom in our time lovers are moving ahead with their conspiracy to restore the Constitution.

I just got a call from a fellow who is with the Ron Paul for president contingent. He obtained a list of supporters and donators from each congressional district in my state and asked if I would be willing to call those in my district. Presumably some are registered republicans who have the right to attend the caucus at which delegates will be elected to go to the national nominating convention in Sept.

Technically delegates are bound in some cases to vote for McAmnesty on the first ballot and in some cases even the second or third ballots. But the worst they can do to you if you don't is forbid you from ever being a delegate again!

How much do you want to bet that McCain will not get the nomination on the first or any ballot in Minneapolis?

There will be a Ron Paul march on Washington June 21st. Ron Paul will speak there.

But there will be another rally around the convention hall in Minneapolis in September. The place will also be filled inside with Ron Paul delegates from all over the country who will choose Ron Paul to be the Republican nominee for president.

The Republican Party will unite around the most libertarian conservative candidate imaginable who has shown his devotion to limited government as spelled out in the Constitution in his ten terms in Congress. He was just re elected by a landslide from the 14th district in Texas for his eleventh term.

Ron Paul will go on to beat the socialists and fascists the democrats have chosen to unchange the status quo.

If you happen to be a registered Republican you can contact your local precinct leader and play a role in helping elect delegates to the convention. Go to www.ronpaul2008.com and become a precinct leader which will give you access to lists of phone numbers of other precinct leaders in your state.

Join the Ron Paul R 3vol ution!

galt