Although there is much to say for Ron Paul support for him is questionable. One problem in the United States is the role that corporations play in manipulating elections, office holders and the press. Although Paul has supported the Occupy Wall Street movement his libertarian philosophy would remove what restraints the government has on corporations. Although Paul would eliminate much of the US military's involvement in foreign affairs his libertarian philosophy would prevent any restriction on US arms sales by US corporations to foreign entities. This is a source of international tension and would increase under Paul. One important act of the US government to promote social justice and oppose racism is the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul has stated that his vision of limited government would oppose that act. In my view open slather for US corporations and lack of governmental controls on racism would be worse than what we have now. I am a US citizen living in Australia, am disappointed in many Obama policies and vote in US elections by absentee ballot. I shall vote for Obama with a regret that there is no better alternative.

Well put, david f.

A libertarian doth not a leftist make. Ron Paul is more isolationist than leftist, more free-marketeer than socialist.

Were Mr Paul, by some wierd sequence of events, to wind up as POTUS, I expect his sincerely held "leftist" policies soon would suffer the same fate as Mr Obama's, but more directly at the hands of the corporations who control US elections and hold great sway over legislation, rather than through an entrenched and recalcitrant opposition and an undisciplined governing party.

The latest example is the XL Pipeline read this, from Twitter, five minutes ago:

"@brianbeutler Obama on Keystone: "I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision" "

Oddly (or not), Daniel Kogoy says nothing whatever about Ron Paul's energy policies. Unfortunately, many of the "leftists" who will vote for Ron Paul will not give this a second thought as to why this plank is missing from Ron Paul's campaign platform. I wonder: could it be a matter of softly, softly, to assure support from fossil fuel interests?

Disgraceful. So a major Green's members supports a racist, sexist anti-working class republican. He will abolish health care, opposes support for minorities, eg the Civil Rights Act, and wants to destroy the organised working class. He is part of the one percent. His prescriptions would destroy US capitalism and the living standards of its workers. He wants to withdraw from foreign wars to impose his economic neoliberalism the better on US society. This says a lot about the bankruptcy of the Greens that a prominent member would write this absolutely disgraceful article. I have two articles on this, attacking Paul and the left who support them, on my blog En Passant with John Passant.

So the best the left can come up with is that they would prefer to mindlessly support the escalation of perpetual aggressive imperialist war, prefer to support siphoning trillions of dollars from the poorest members of society and the vast majority of ordinary workers to channel it to the big banks and billionaires, prefer a truly fascist society in which government can now permanently detain people without charge or trial - just so they can hold onto their precious forced redistributions, the need for which is overwhelmingly caused by dysfunctional interventionist policies in the first place.

"Although Paul has supported the Occupy Wall Street movement his libertarian philosophy would remove what restraints the government has on corporations."

This is where the economic illiteracy of the left wing is culpable. It never occurs to them that the predominance of big corporations might have anything to do with the policies they've been supporting for the last hundred years. In particular, Keynesian policies work by manipulating the supply of money, which works by channelling money to the big banks and corporations - wealth that has been stolen from the ordinary workers at the rate of inflation. And you guys support it! And claim to be leftist! Unbelievable. All the tax, superannuation, regulatory, occupational licensing, consumer protection and compulsory insurance schemes you guys support - all of them work to favour big corporations and marginalise small business. You are hoist with your own petard.

It is not a sound complaint against Paul that he opposes abortion and the Civil Rights Act, because he opposes them only at the *federal* level because they are none of the federal governments' business - read the Constitution. This still leaves the states free to legislate on matters that are within their proper competence. This leftist argument just shows the usual contempt for the concept of the rule of law, or of reason itself - and then they have the gall to complain about fascism of which their own support is the primary cause!

"I shall vote for Obama with a regret that there is no better alternative."

Amazing. I only regret the families of the many many many people who are going to be killed by your own admitted representative cannot bring you to justice.

Daniel, you have hit the nail on the head. Policies of freedom, peace, and honest money are preferable to anyone who really cares about social justice. Those members of the left who would prefer an out-and-out fascist, and killing large numbers of innocent people so as to favour the military-industrial complex, and the Keynesian policies of permanent crony capitalism and bailouts, need to look in the mirror, and need to DO A RE-THINK.

it is great to read something from a Greens councillor that shows an understanding of Libertarian philosophy and how it is fundamentally different from that of the conservatives

Applied Rand-libertarian politics 101.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/exploit-the-earth-or-die.asp

Pure parasitism.

Suck the life out of and therefore inevitably trash the biosphere within which we are completely entangled in a vast complex web of mutual co-dependent relationships. Upon which we are completely dependent for our health and well-being.

Not good for Black Ducks or any living-breathing biological beings, including humans.

The killing of large numbers of people by US forces would not stop under Paul. The US military would be curbed but replaced by private armies hired by the corporations and serving corporate interests. This would be in accordance with Paul's philosophy which would remove government restrictions on violations of human rights and government restrictions on corporate activity. There is already a precedent for this in the private security forces in Iraq. There is at the moment some control and oversight on the activities of the US armed forces. Replacement of these forces by private corporate funded armies would eliminate those controls.

Jennifer, you say
"it is great to read something from a Greens councillor that shows an understanding of Libertarian philosophy and how it is fundamentally different from that of the conservatives Posted by Jennifer, Thursday, 19 January 2012 9:05:00 AM

My question: How does a "Ron Paul libertarian" avoid becoming a useful idiot, for the corporate interests that rule America and are doing their best to rule Australia?

Myself, I'm very disappointed to read a puff piece for Ron Paul, written by a "Greens councillor" from anywhere. I would rather read an apologia for Pauline Hanson - at least she served honest flake.

Here is Ron Paul on political economy:

"The Ludwig von Mises Institute (LVMI): [www.mises.org]

Within our Nation stands one center of learning that is a cornerstone of liberty for the entire world. In 1982, Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., former chief of staff for Congressman Paul, founded the Ludwig von Mises Institute, now the center of the Austrian School of economics, in honor of its namesake. Mises' theory of economics confirmed that our forefathers, Bastiat, and others were correct in believing that Liberty is the only possible system under which man can live successfully. The alternatives lead to chaos, plunder, and destruction. Free trade and honest money, being gold and silver coin, is the foundation of civilization under the laws of nature and nature's God.

The Institute is not government-funded, but exists by support of the people. For those mis-educated in government schools, when you listen to their audio tapes such as "Money, Banking, and The New World Order," or read such Institute publications as "The Free Market," you will know the truth for the first time.

If you have witnessed Ron Paul's "Texas Straight Talk," then you should be ready to visit the LVMI web site. Dr. Paul, incidentally, has served as the Institute's Distinguished Counselor since its founding."

Well, Jennifer?

Link to: [www.mises.org]

Hi Sir V. ,

I went to a Mises seminar in Sydney recently put on by Benjamin Marks from www.economics.org.au .

The speakers had no time for "corporate interests" and were particularly critical of bankers - including central bankers and fiat money.

Well, Jennifer, if you are agreeable to the proposition, then we can agree to disagree.

Did you see Daniel K. at Benjamin Marks' Seminar?

Lol, progressives supporting Ron Paul. The only reason progressives have any standing at all is because leftist politicians take tax payers money and give it to planned parenthood, NPR, marriage equality events, tolerance conferences, medicare, etc. Ron Paul's desired tax rate is 0%, take away the taxes from the progressives and their entire edifice is swept away overnight. Under pure libertarianism gays could marry and adopt, for example, but they will be stripped of any government support (programs, tax cash) so the exercise will not stand up to our natural human boundaries. Furthermore, female dominated public sector jobs will be the first to go as tax revenue is slashed, generally these jobs don't produce things and are unnecessary in a libertarian society.

Libertarianism will also lead to extreme social conservativism because single parent families will be left to their own devices, no handouts - the only choice will be for citizens to form large families that look out for eachother, and with a mother and father, any other arrangement is impractical in a libertarian society.

If money talks then Dr Paul is getting plenty of it! Of all the republican potential candidates; he is probably the least reprehensible?
And so far out in front of billionaire corporate raider Romney; as a fund raiser, that these two could wind up squaring off in the final round?
We live in interesting times. One hopes someone can take it up to the president and force him to explain, why the change we can all believe in, is still just a glib mantra, rather than policy and future vision?
Not that it's all down to him; but rather, an incredibly lack lustre congress/senate, who most of the time seem to have been less than helpful; or, unable to lift the gaze; to contemplate national objectives?

I must confess, that until recently, I had considered Ron Paul to be a loudmouth nutter, with his head so far up his fundamental orifice he needed a window in his stomach to see where he is going.

But lately, I have come to regard him as a loudmouth nutter, who actually has a chance to challenge for the presidency.

And I say, bring it on!

There are two conceivable outcomes. The first, and most likely, is that his candidacy will be an absolute godsend for Obama, who will put him away like Johnson put away Goldwater back in 1964. That actually might be the best outcome for the Republicans - as Wikipedia observes, "the defeat of so many older Republicans in 1964 also cleared the way for a younger generation of American conservatives to mobilize." One of the blindingly obvious aspects of these Primaries is that the Republican talent pool is horribly shallow.

Of course, the other possibility is that he will be elected, an occurrence that could single-handedly bring about the instant demise of the USA as a world power. I only say "could", because the likelihood of his getting any of his zany ideas implemented in the sclerotic system of patronage and windbaggery that is the US Administration, is next to zero. In which case the damage would not be the implementation of his policies, which would be instantly destructive*, but the image of impotence and fiscal idiocy that his presidency would project to the rest of the world.

So, for a year full of fun and frolics, I say - Ron Paul for the Republican candidacy!!

*for an idea of how destructive, think "gold standard", and work from there.

“The killing of large numbers of people by US forces would not stop under Paul.”

David, in case you haven’t noticed, these wars are being conducted under the authority of the US government. And you support that, remember? The corporations profiting from that are profiting from the policies of mass killing and destruction that you support, remember?

Paul’s proposal is to end these wars. What excuse have you got for supporting them instead of opposing them?

“The US military would be curbed but replaced by private armies hired by the corporations and serving corporate interests.”

Here you are either being confused, or dishonest. How do you derive from the fact that Paul’s policy is to stop the wars, the ridiculous claim that the US military would be replaced by private armies?

“This would be in accordance with Paul's philosophy which would remove government restrictions on violations of human rights …”

Here you fall back to blatant untruth. Paul’s platform is based on
1. peace – stopping the wars and withdrawing the troops
2. sound money – ending the Fed
3. freedom – ending the unconstitutional departments and laws including the police state fascism.

Either cite evidence in Paul’s policies for your absurd claim or admit you are wrong.

“and government restrictions on corporate activity.”

You have not shown any reason why government should be restricting consensual activities that do not infringe the personal or property rights of others.

Most importantly, when you look at corporate wrongdoing, you don’t make the connection between the policies you support, and the fascist results they produce.

Paul’s policy is to stop government’s monetary shenanigans channeling trillions from ordinary people to big banks and big corporations – and you’re opposed to that policy!

“There is already a precedent for this in the private security forces in Iraq.”

A precedent under the dispensation you support and Paul opposes.

Why is it not a solution to this problem to stop the wars? How can you possibly oppose such a policy in favour of more killings?

Sir Vivor
It is unclear what point you are trying to make by your quote of Ron Paul.

Paul says:
“The alternatives [to liberty] lead to chaos, plunder, and destruction. Free trade and honest money, being gold and silver coin, is the foundation of civilization under the laws of nature and nature's God.”

And here we have the socialists arguing IN FAVOUR OF:
• endless aggressive wars abroad
• a fascist police state at home
• monopoly government control of the money supply that works by channelling massive wealth from the 99 percent to the big banks and corporations
• an extensive and intensive regulatory regime - tax, superannuation, medical, consumer protection, environmental etc. - which , contrary to the *dreams* of the socialists, have the *actual* effect of entrenching the privileges of the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.

What’s your point? That Ron Paul is right, and his opponents are fascists? Because that’s what you’re proving.

“How does a "Ron Paul libertarian" avoid becoming a useful idiot, for the corporate interests that rule America …?”

1. By ending government’s monopoly control of the money supply, which operates by cartelizing the banks and granting them a licence to print money, channeling cheap credit to big corporations paid for by ripping off the working population and the poor at the rate of inflation.
2. By ending unconstitutional laws whose restrictions work to entrench the privileges of big corporations, exclude competition from small businesses, and cause unemployment, poverty and social disadvantage
3. By ending the wars which overwhelmingly serve the interests of the military-industrial complex - not because “corporations rule”, but because people like you support the ideology of unlimited government power!

Well, Sir Vivor? More to the point, how do *you* deny being a useful idiot for corporate interests?

The glaring flaw in the left wing argument is to ignore the fascist effect of the policies they support.

I challenge the socialists to deal with the real libertarian arguments, instead of the misrepresentations and untruths they have satisfied themselves with so far.

Peter Hume wrote: "Here you are either being confused, or dishonest. How do you derive from the fact that Paul’s policy is to stop the wars, the ridiculous claim that the US military would be replaced by private armies?"

Paul's policy is not to stop the wars. Paul's policy is to end US government involvement in them. His policy is also to eliminate government overseeing the activity of corporations and to limit US government international involvement.

That would privatise wars and allow corporations to hire private armies to advance their ends. It isn't ridiculous. It logically follows.

It returns us to an earlier time where such private entities as the British East India Corporation extended the British Empire.

Let's not accuse each other of being dishonest. Cut out the crap. I call it as I see it.

There are three fundamental reasons why the US people should vote for Ron Paul.He is totally honest and cannot be corrupted.He wants to restore the US Constitution and End the US Federal Reserve, the instigators of wars and the depressions and the GFC.

Even if the American people don't like some of his policies,the restoration of the US Constitution gives people the freedom of far more choice.At the moment they have no choice.The banksters are raping our economies and driving us perilously close to nuke wars with Russia and China.That is the reality.

David Hume, let me make it clear then.

In my humble opinion, Ron Paul has nothing to offer the US electorate except fantasy that cannot be lived out nationally, beyond the two-year-long extravaganza of fertility-rite-cum-popularity-contest that is the US electoral mechanism in blossom.

If you happen to be American, David (or other gentle readers), kindly don't take that personally. It is the process, not the people. When I grew up, all of my best friends were Americans, because that's where I grew up. And taken one at a time, Americans are, on the average, just like people anywhere: to be taken respectfully as individuals.

But the 1968 presidential race made clear to me what a rat race it really is, burlesquing the worst, dragging the best through the mud, wasting money colossally, like Kerry Packer did in Vegas, just because it can be done; sponsored by the corporations that are otherwise unremittingly both stingy and mendacious, and always geared toward the next board meeting, with as many local, state and federal legislators in their pockets as will fit.

Ron Paul, bless his cotton socks, wants to get rid of "big government". When I was 18 and uneducated, I could see for myself that "big government" counters "big business", and to get rid of one leaves the individual beholden to the other. Unfortunately, neither is the lesser of two evils on its own.

And what is the fundamental aim of big business? To maximise profits for the shareholder. So I do what I can for responsible civic governance, at the local level.

How am I to avoid being BG or BB's useful idiot? My advice would do you no good, David. It's a jungle you have to find your own way through.

Sir Vivor,what's wrong with Ron Paul's vision of bringing back their brilliant consitiution based on the Magna Carta? Obama and Bush have now brought in a police state in law that awaits fascist enactment.

The good thing would be Dr. Paul being POTUS

The bad thing would be Dr. Paul being POTUS because much like the incumbent, it would soon be evidently clear how moribund the system is (just like ours) no matter who's at the helm.

He's definitely not left (a uselessly arcane term in my opinion), he's a (l)iberal (l)iberterian, much like myself and it's pretty lonely in Aus for us liberterians :)

I have no one to vote for in Aus; ALP & LNP are tweedle dum and tweedle dee and while the Greens have some admirable liberal policies , they want us to end up with the same bureaucratic nightmare of micro managing barstadry the incumbents have given us, presuming they know better then us on how to work and live our lives.

Our entire system of democracy needs to be dismantled and a more liquid form of democracy introduced, where I can support polices from whomever I want, rather then throwing my lot in en toto. The only remote chance of that happening is ditching the party system. Independents it is, hopefully with them as a majority we have some hope of tearing it down to rebuild it, but I digress :)

and thank <insert deity of choice> for Peter Hume, keep it up good sir, superb stuff. Don't be disheartened by the lunacy of the majority that appear to want change by doing the same thing over and over or are happy as long as "their party" is in, regardless of the consequences to the nation.

An example, 1.5Million of these "nutters" (and I use the word as a term of endearment) voted for the ALP at the last NSW election, it boggles the mind... just how bad do you have to be before you people will let it go ?

Valley Guy,the Libertarians are growing philosophy and we are thinkers who have boundless courage.

Spot on Arjay, thanks Valley Guy.

David f
If you weren’t being dishonest, then I’m sorry. However the only other possibility is that you’re confused, for the following reasons.

1. “That would privatise wars…”
If the US government wasn’t blowing up bridal parties and goatherds and schoolchildren and shop-keepers in Afghanistan and Iraq, corporations would be doing it? Coca-Cola perhaps?

Why do you say that?

2. “It logically follows.”

No it doesn’t. It’s a complete non sequitur.

Why have you ignored the obvious logical possibility that, if the government wasn’t using its monopoly taxing and warring powers to attack those countries, we would have peace instead?

3. “His policy is also to eliminate government overseeing the activity of corporations”.

Not it’s not, and your misrepresentation is only displaying your misunderstanding of the better option of freedom and peace that you’re ignoring.

The foundation of libertarian philosophy is that the initiation of aggression is bad and should be banned, by force if necessary. Paul’s policy as concerns corporations, consistent with that philosophy, is that the legitimate function of government is to stop aggression and fraud. He is in favour of government stopping aggressive activity – unlike you, who think it’s the basis of a good society.

Please cite evidence in Paul’s policies for your allegation, or admit that you are wrong on that point.

4. “His policy is also to … limit US government international involvement.”

So what? Please admit that you are literally supporting unlimited arbitrary power.

Why shouldn’t US government international involvement be curtailed, if it relies on the use of unprovoked aggression at home or abroad, or is unconstitutional? Why shouldn’t relations with other people be based on peace? Why is that automatically bad?

5. “That would privatise wars and allow corporations to hire private armies to advance their ends…”

Your conclusion is illogical and unsound for the four reasons I have shown.

Furthermore the risk to private corporations would be much greater, and therefore the likelihood of their aggression much less, without the incitement and protection of the US government – obviously!

(cont.)

However even if your assertion were true, at least the people would have the option of *refusing to fund* such corporations by not buying their products. Under your preferred option, payment is taken under compulsion – taxation - or fraud – the Fed; both of which are illegal for corporations, and would continue so under President Ron Paul.

Thus your entire argument collapses.

But if I am wrong, what are the answers to my questions?

If you can't, please admit that by supporting Obama over Ron Paul
• you are actively supporting mass killings of innocent people
• since the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency, you are actively supporting government monopoly control of the money supply that works by thieving massive wealth from the poorest people in the US and the world, to the richest and most powerful banks, big corporations, and officials, especially profiting the military-industrial complex.
• you are actively supporting a man who, in violation of the plain words of the Constitution, claims the arbitrary prerogative to order the indefinite detention of American citizens on American soil without charge or trial, and who sanctions the killing of American citizens without trial, and torture and disappearances throughout the world, based on a non-declared war on an abstract concept.
All despite the fact you are unable to justify your reasoning which is multiple layers deep in ethical and logical falsehoods and factual untruths.

Sir Vivor
I think you are projecting onto government what you think it should be, rather than what is actually is.

“It’s a jungle…”
Only if you confuse violent with voluntary social relations, which means you haven’t understood libertarianism. That’s why you have unwittingly supported mass murder and corruption over peace and freedom.

If you are right, how do you respond to my three numbered points above, showing how big government corruptly favours big business?

Also, 4. putting aside corporations’ revenue because of big government, all their revenue comes from people’s voluntary payments, which people can freely withhold – especially if government isn’t suffocating a thousand competitors as now.

(cont.)

It is governments’, not corporations’, revenues that are compulsory. Why doesn’t this prove your argument wrong?

Isn’t it time for you to re-think the views you mistakenly formed at age 18, after 10 years compulsory state indoctrination by the biggest monopoly corporation of all – the state – which just happened to confuse in your mind peace and freedom, with violence and fraud?

All
Since many self-styled progressives are supporting totalitarian fascism over peace and freedom, we have to ask: why?

Obviously it’s no use asking them, because, assuming they are not genuinely evil or dishonest, they must be confused. Why? Because they’re supporting inhumane and corrupt abuses that are self-evidently the opposite of what they think they stand for.

I believe we can identify two fundamental errors, one ethical, one economic in their thinking.

The most fundamental moral blunder is to confuse violent with non-violent social relations. Yet this error underlies the statist – left and right wing - ideology in favour of forced redistributions: the ethical element is disregarded. And then they are surprised when the landscape of social values turns out grotesque and corrupted by power. Well surprise surprise.

The economic error is that they do not reflect that there is nothing about the nature of the state that guarantees the forced redistributions will be from the poor to the rich. In fact government has far more to gain from currying favour with the rich, especially if the intellectual class, having forgotten the very idea of freedom, act as cheerleaders for the state, which is exactly what the economically illiterate left wing intelligentsia have been doing for the last 100 years. “The tree is known by its fruit.”

The economic error is the uncritical belief that government creates net benefits for society by printing money, and provides security and justice by extensive and intensive aggressions against property rights.

What if these beliefs are wrong?

What if that creed makes, not for social justice, but for an unfair society dominated by unjust political favouritism and huge neo-feudal privilege? That would have explaining power, wouldn’t it?

What if government, far from being a righteous counter-weight to big business, is the worst enabler of its corruption, and robber of the workers?

What if personal and economic liberty are two sides of the same coin? Since human rights cannot be expressed but through property rights, and the statists think property rights are immoral and should be forcibly overridden, what ultimately follows is the great agreement between the progressives and totalitarian fascism, which we have seen in this thread.

The idea that the solution is *even more* war, tax, inflation, debt, bubbles, depressions, bailouts, handouts, bureaucracy, central planning, regulations, and tyrannical trashing of ancient rights and liberties, only shows their moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

When we put aside the leftists’ misrepresentations and misunderstandings, they have NO ANSWER whatsoever to Ron Paul’s radical critique of the left, the right, and the state.

Ron Paul’s candidacy shows the statists of both left and right wing are at a cross-roads. They either continue their ideology that the people are united on the principle of unlimited submission and obedience to the state, that the Constitution is the state’s toilet paper; continue their disgraceful support for aggressive war abroad, a police state at home, and grand monetary fraud everywhere...

… or instead support *real* social justice based on peace, freedom, honest money, and the principle they have too long neglected – the moral primacy of *voluntary* social relations!

President Ron Paul!

P Hume, whether or not I am projecting is a moot point, as I may also have greater expectations of profit-driven corporations, as well as of first-world (and other) national governments.

I think you are projecting onto libertarianism what you think it should be, rather than what is actually is.

What do you expect will happen in the event that Ron Paul becomes prez? In an ideal libertarian world, will government wither away? And then, with a bit of luck and planning, will a semi-libertarian state then evolve into an anarchic utopia?

What, under such circumstances, would you guess to be the maximum natural size of of a profit-driven entity? Will the corporations evolve into anarchist collectives as well?

Everybody saw what happened to a left wing President like Barack Obama who promised the lefties the world when they got into office, he suddenly got a reality check and figured out that his promises were tantamount to total stupidity. The same thing happened to Tony Blair.

One suspects that when they reached high office and tried to implement their left wing "reforms", their own bureaucrats started to tell them the hard facts of life. As Prime Minister or President, they were now privy to secret information about their countries enemies which they had no notion of before. And their senior advisors told them that they were not in fairy land anymore, they were responsible for the continued prosperity, welfare and security of the entire country.

Fortunately, people like Blair and Obama were smart enough to change their spots. One wonders whether the present contenders for high office are that smart. Or is the western world now a metaphor for the Costa Concordia, with the residents of the West only concerned with their lifestyles, there is an idiot at the helm, and nobody is wondering where the ship of state is heading.

One puzzling aspect of your position, Peter Hume, is why you are actively supporting the continuation of a system that you so clearly despise...

>>President Ron Paul!<<

I see nothing in Paul's manifesto that envisages the disappearance of government itself, and the full assertion of root and branch libertarianism that you propose. He will still be President. There will still be an executive. And in order to implement his policies, he will still need to impose the government's will over the people's.

And he will still have to manage the government's impact on the economy, which is hardly going to disappear overnight, is it? And in your words:

>>...fascism results from government attempts to manage the economy. Economically speaking, that's what fascism *is* by definition.<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13065#225874

How do you differentiate Paul's proposals for a return to specie, that seem to underpin his "economic policies", from your definition of fascism above?

Having utopian ideas is not a crime. Believing that they have a place in today's world just could be.

Here's another puff piece for Ron Paul.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28669

In it, Dr Paul's view on the withering away of the state is summarised thus

"Ron Paul has said that he does not support ending welfare before an economy is created that makes a welfare state unnecessary."

There you go. Reminds me of a poster I once saw, saying

What do we want?
Gradual change!

When do we want it?
In due course!

PHume, if I were you, I would be throroghly researching Ro Paul's backers and maybe, if you are into free trade of information, without fear or favour, reporting back on your findings.

Daniel Kogov, I would either distance myself from Ron Paul or else change parties. This guy really has very little in common with The Greens. Maybe you should consider the League of Rights - from my recollection of one of their books I read, back in the early '80s, it sounds like the RonPaulists' mixture of free enterprise, free markets and free nonsense. (I tell you that for free).

Or maybe the Citizen's Electoral Council? There's another mob that might suit your tastes.

Hadn't seen that one, Sir Vivor. That's hilarious.

>>"Ron Paul has said that he does not support ending welfare before an economy is created that makes a welfare state unnecessary."<<

Considering his views on "creating an economy" (which already puts him offside with Peter Hume, who believes that government intervention in the economy is nothing short of ritual embezzlement), that is another way of saying "never".

Ron Paul's vision for the US has a great deal in common with what has made North Korea great. International isolationism is neat when you sell it to the public as "protecting errr jerbs" (see South Park for details), but utter folly as a survival policy.

Also, it is significant that no-one has yet asked him the question, "how will you achieve this, Ron?". The answer, one suspects, could only be an extension of his response to welfare reduction. "When this has been achieved, then that can be done..." and so on. But where does he start?

Oh yes. Kill the Fed. That will achieve what, in real terms?

Tipping over the first domino, only to discover that it doesn't connect with the next one, or the one after that... The US will become a laughing stock, and they will rapidly gain the distinction of actually making the Eurozone look competent.

Which will be some achievement.

Fascinating to watch, though. Go Ron Paul!

The left that had illusions in Obama is now looking for a saviour from the so-called Libertarians? Abolish Roe v Wade, the state mandating life beginning at conception (hence abortion being murder), use the troops against Mexican immigrants, no environmental regulation, go on the gold standard and abolish the Fed. Abolish social security. One member of the ruling elite wants the exploitative relationship between labour and capital to happen with no government 'interference', except to save the market, of course and the soft left falls down before him. This isn't liberty.It is the road to serfdom. That doesn't mean support for the parties of capital, the Democrats and Republicans. This is a debate among the one percent about the way forward. The alternative is not to have illusions in top down politics but to build an organisation in which the mass of the people determine their own future, not rely on the latest demigod, whether it be Ron Paul or before him Barack Obama. It says much about the Left in the US and here too that a right winger like Paul can get their support by saying a few things (but for different reasons) that that soft Left should be saying about opposing wars, and on drugs, for example.

Here's part of what an article in counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/20/ron-paul’s-anti-imperialism/) says:

'...the rationale undergirding Paul’s positions posits that wars and foreign meddling are deviations from true capitalism, not inevitable consequences of it. This conflicts with what all plausible theories of imperialism contend, but so what; theologians are accustomed to offending what evidence and sound reason establish.

'Therefore Paul would bring the troops home not for any of the reasons genuine anti-imperialists would — because they’re on the wrong side of liberation struggles or because their military adventures sustain a long overripe capitalist order – but because what they’re doing, indeed their very existence, is, by his lights and according to the theology he assumes, bad for business. Paul wants to save capitalism from forces that he thinks lead it astray; forces that, in truth, are inherent in the economic system he supports. If he is on the side of peace in the Middle East and elsewhere, it is for no reason other than that peace is, by his lights, a by-product of getting capitalism right.

'It is hard to see how anyone with a modicum of sense could fail to see that just the opposite is true. But this is the way of theology. Endeavoring to make the lesser argument appear the stronger is older than God.'

Daniel, one other point. I would have thought the left (including, if I stretch the word's meaning to its boundaries, the Australian Greens) should have been arguing to support a left wing candidate. You know, someone like Jill Stein of the Green Party of the United States or another left opposition candidate. At least Jill will be dogging Obama and whoever of Romney or Gingrich wins the Republican nomination all the way to November with genuine left wing views.

Thank you, Pericles, for some necessary common sense. Libertarianism in the current GFC - yes, probably not a goer.

And thank you, Passy, for trying to get what's left of the left back on track. It might have been easier back in 1871, but good luck.

Wow: thanks to both Pericles and Passy.....

You won't see that too often.

It's going to be a strange year. Buckle up

Passy
1. Are you in favour of ending the Fed? If so, you agree with Ron Paul. If not, then please admit you are in favour of a system that rips off the workers of countless billions and gives it to the big banks and corporations. Why?
2. Are you in favour of ending the wars of imperialism that Obama is waging? If so, you agree with Ron Paul. If not, why not?
3. Are you in favour of Obama’s claimed power to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial? If not, then you agree with Ron Paul. If so, please admit that you support fascism.

Pericles
I am not in favour of the immediate abolition of the welfare state, even though I’m opposed to it.

One of the main arguments against the welfare state is indeed that it causes massive intractable social problems, whether the policies are continued or abolished. For example, I would not be in favour of immediately abolishing the old age pension because the state, having robbed the working population of 40 percent of people’s income during their whole productive life, leaves them dependent on it in old age. They cannot be thrown out onto the street; they themselves have been robbed of the means to provide for their own retirement by a scheme which, if done by a private corporation, would see the directors imprisoned for a very long time.

Therefore there is a need to compromise but only in practice, never in principle. For example, the way to abolish the age pension is not by new taxes or regulations. It is to stop inflating away people’s savings, stop taxing away their income, stop destroying capital on schemes that people wouldn’t voluntarily pay for, stop preventing people from earning income by occupational licensing and minimum wage laws; and allow young people to opt out of the whole dysfunctional racket if they want.

Thus once again, when we take away your misrepresentations and projections, you have no argument left. This applies to the rest of your posts.
My support for Ron Paul is consistent …

(cont.)

… with compromise in practice, but not principle, toward the overall value of liberty.

The flaw in your reasoning is to think of freedom as a kind of policy option. According to this theory, ending some kind of control is “managing the economy”. No it’s not. That’s the whole point. Society doesn’t need “managing” by the know-it-alls of the political class. It needs to be freed from their chronic interference. People can decide their own non-aggressive values all by themselves.

Your smirk of gnostic self-righteousness on monetary policy only shows the indefensible irrational Keynesian belief that printing money is what makes modern society wealthy. You are not in a position to criticize libertarian theory on this unless and until you can show you understand it. A society’s wealth comes from savings, work, and investment that satisfies people’s wants, not from printing pieces of paper.

Sir Vivor

Good questions.

“I think you are projecting onto libertarianism what you think it should be, rather than what is actually is.”

I have shown reason why left wing ideology is internally inconsistent and inconsistent with reality. That’s why, for example, they support fascism and war thinking they’re supporting social justice; or support Keynesian policies while simultaneously blaming “unregulated capitalism”.

And I have shown reason why libertarian theory is internally consistent, and consistent with morality and reality.

On the other hand, you haven’t given any reason for saying I’m “projecting onto libertarianism…” etc. It appears to be a mere backbite.

What reason do you have to say I am projecting onto libertarianism… etc?

The word utopia has always been used to describe a centrally planned vision of society by a philosopher-king cum social engineer. Implicit is the idea that the utopian knows better than everyone else how they should live their lives.

Utopias never transpire in practice, precisely because they are centrally planned; and a centrally planned civilisation is actually impossible in theory, let alone in practice, as Ludwig von Mises has conclusively proved: http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

Thus the leftist vision is a utopia. The libertarian vision is an entirely different proposition.

Unlike the statists of left and right, libertarians do not pretend to know what values everyone else should be forced to achieve or to sacrifice. We don’t have a grand plan for you. We understand that social order and harmony do not arise from a compulsory monopoly of force and fraud as the statists claim. The way to a fairer and better society, in which everyone can enjoy the good things that life and society have to offer, as best human beings know how, is by banning force and fraud and respecting people’s freedom. The totalitarian dreams of the socialists and statists cause and can only cause divisiveness, impoverishment and neo-feudal privileges for the rich and powerful which the socialists’ invincible ignorance blames on capitalism.

“What do you expect will happen in the event that Ron Paul becomes prez?”
You can read his policies on his website.

I think the result would be greater peace, freedom and prosperity throughout the world.

“In an ideal libertarian world, will government wither away?”
I think it would be ideal for social relations based on aggression and fraud to be replaced by social relations based on consent. Perhaps murder or rape will never disappear; but that doesn’t mean we should actively support them. Same with aggression generally. Government is a claimed legal monopoly of ultimate decision-making backed by force, from which derive all its claims of taxation and jurisdiction, and from there, all policy.

Slavery, once chronic everywhere, was enormously reduced within about a century (not counting its great resurgence under socialism, when the labour of whole populations, being factors of production, was owned by the state). Perhaps a revolution in moral understanding will see the same thing happen with taxation. It could. It is definitely both a moral and practical alternative.

The limiting factor is *ideas*. Our primitive ancestors lived poor and brutal lives because they *believed* the warrior ethos: that the way to wealth was to bash people and take theirs. Statism is just a throwback to that crude, ignorant, and anti-social belief system: wealth comes from taking it from others.

Now should be a great time for freedom, because it is obvious that socialism and fascism are dead gullies, as witness Passy’s utter confusion and hypocrisy, pretending to distance himself from the violence when he has nothing but violence to offer, mouthing drivel about the “exploitation” of “labour”, real Marxist stuff.

Man’s progress from a hand-to-mouth existence to civilisation, is the result of capital accumulation and social co-operation based on the division of labour. The more people understand this, the more they can reject the principles underlying slavery and statism, and embrace the *true* social principle: peace and freedom, which generates all the wealth the socialist predators are trying to get their hands on.

“What, under such circumstances, would you guess to be the maximum natural size of a profit-driven entity?”
Absent any favours from government, a business can only make profit by peole voluntarily paying for its products. They can only do this by using the scarce factors of production to satisfy the most urgent wants of the masses, as judged by the masses.

There’s nothing wrong with this. The left-wing set against it is idiotic. Without profit and loss, all economic activity above the level of barter would be turned into a senseless jumble, and billions would die of starvation. Profit and loss are the means by which the masses direct the entire process of production. The socialists have it precisely backassward, upside-down, and inside-out.

To understand this important point, see Mises’ excellent paper “Profit and Loss”
http://mises.org/daily/2321

While ever transactions are voluntary, it doesn’t matter how big a profit-driven entity is. People have no right to the efforts or property of others, other than with their consent.

“ Will the corporations evolve into anarchist collectives as well?”
I doubt it.

Liberty doesn’t mean no rules or rulers. It just means they’re based on consent, not coercion. Social order emerges from voluntary relations, not from central planning; just as the order in language, music, sport, and morality emerge spontaneously from voluntary interactions, not from philosopher-kings.

PHume, you say:

"Profit and loss are the means by which the masses direct the entire process of production."

I won't bother you with any more questions.

Ron Paul backs the Confederacy.

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-made-south-was-right-civil-war-speech-with-confederate-flag/

I suspect that I may not be the first to tell you, Peter Hume, but you often come across on this forum as a self-righteous prig. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as they say.

>>...once again, when we take away your misrepresentations and projections, you have no argument left.<<

Ummmm... which misrepresentations and projections might you be referring to, pray? You carefully select one mini-topic - the old-age pension (which, incidentally, I didn't single out for comment) - and ignore the rest. You may think that is a smart debating tactic, but to me it is simply cowardice.

But I'm afraid your slip is showing.

>>...the way to abolish the age pension is not by new taxes or regulations. It is to stop inflating away people’s savings, stop taxing away their income, stop destroying capital on schemes that people wouldn’t voluntarily pay for, stop preventing people from earning income by occupational licensing and minimum wage laws; and allow young people to opt out of the whole dysfunctional racket if they want.<<

You plan to achieve all that without new regulations? "Watch my lips: no new regulations"

How? By osmosis? Telepathy? Vulcan mind-melds? As with all you platonic idealists, you think that these small details can be resolved just by wishing them into being.

*tap tap* "There's no place like home..."

Ron Paul has not yet articulated a single practical policy. They exist on the same cosmic plane as your ideas - "if only the world wasn't like it is, life would be so much better". Newsflash - you cannot replace the reality that the rest of the world enjoys, with your own brand of theoretically-benevolent anarchy.

But let's be generous for a moment, and imagine you could sprinkle your wouldn't-life-be-grand-if fairy dust around. Explain to us how Ron Paul's fixation for the gold standard (or, if you don't like gold, pick a specie) is going to benefit the US economy. Maybe you could begin with a quick overview of how it might be introduced?

That's just for starters.

And please, try hard, for once, to be practical.

And while I'm here, Peter Hume...

>>The flaw in your reasoning is to think of freedom as a kind of policy option. According to this theory, ending some kind of control is “managing the economy”.<<

How do you avoid "managing the economy"? It will happen, whatever you do - taking controls away is "managing the economy". Abolishing tax is "managing the economy".

Bringing back the gold standard is reintroducing a type of control, not ending it, as you seem to think. And by definition, of course, is just another form of "managing the economy".

Your particular brand of muddled-up Mise Institute economics and laissez-faire anarchy is itself a "kind of policy option", and one that has nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with power. Not to the people, but to a new elite who will grind the faces of the poor and disadvantaged at the first opportunity. It's what they do.

>>Your smirk of gnostic self-righteousness on monetary policy only shows the indefensible irrational Keynesian belief that printing money is what makes modern society wealthy.<<

Nope. I just know, for absolute certain, that the Austrian School and the Ron Pauls of this world are living in cloud-cuckoo land if they think they can simply wish away what exists, and replace it with pipe-dreams. It may well give you a warm feeling to promote the inerrancy of Mise and his boys. But show me one example of how their concepts can be implemented - anywhere in the world - in 2012.

The main reason I think a Ron Paul candidacy would be such a good thing is that we could see in all its threadbare glory, the detail of his policies.

I suspect Obama feels much the same way.

Incidentally, you didn't answer this:

"Oh yes. Kill the Fed. That will achieve what, in real terms?"

Forget for a moment the Arjay-style rave, "a system that rips off the workers of countless billions and gives it to the big banks and corporations", and explain to us what actual transactions will stop happening, and what the result will be.

The general issue is whether a vote for Ron Paul would be preferable to a vote for Obama, in terms of the left’s own self-understanding of the values it stands for.

This turns on the underlying proposition that less government and more freedom would be preferable, for the left’s own professed values, than the status quo under Obama.

This presents the acid test for the left, namely, whether they are *really* in favour of social justice and human liberation or whether despite their talk, when it comes to the crunch, they will show their true colours and prefer totalitarian fascism which, by coincidence, has been the result every time the left has had free rein to implement its self-defining project of socialism.

Actions speak louder than words, and it is very telling that Passy has blatantly evaded answering the question which will prove where he stands on this issue.

It is obvious why: he’s stuck in a cleft stick. He either contradicts himself and supports Ron Paul. Or he admits his *actual* answers “YES I DO support perpetual aggressive war over the freedom of people not to be forced to pay for it, and YES I DO support the forced redistribution of wealth from the world’s working class to the American big banks and military-industrial complex over people’s freedom from government monopoly control of the money supply, and YES I DO support the state’s pretended right to detain torture or kill people without charge or trial, over the concept of freedom from the state’s arbitrary power.”

In other words, their self-understanding is mistaken, and their pretensions to care about human liberation and social justice are FALSE. They would rather have what they themselves consider right-wing fascism than tolerate freedom and private property!

Passy’s non-argument that Ron Paul supports the confederacy must turn on an unspoken premise that bigger government is self-evidently better than smaller. But that’s precisely what’s in issue here. So the deep structure of his argument is only this: “Big government and less freedom are better, because big government and less freedom are better.” It’s illogical…

(Lincoln’s openly stated purpose in going to war was not to free the slaves, but to “save the union”, i.e. to forcibly repress the right of secession and freedom of association which the Declaration of Independence had declared was an inalienable natural right and the basis of government. Lincoln’s purpose wasn’t to free the slaves, it was to treat the whole population as the state's property, which is why Passy agrees. Since slavery was abolished elsewhere at the same time without slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people, it is not self-evident why Lincoln’s violent statist approach was automatically better. So all we’re getting from Passy here is circular argument: the state as God.)

Sir Vivor
What happens when a business make a loss? Does that affect the direction of production?

What happens when a business makes a profit? Does that affect the direction of production?

Being *completely unable* to make any substantive argument, you instead resort to ad hominem (trying to divert the issue onto the character of Ron Paul’s backers without saying how this is relevant to anything in issue) and circularity (assuming that profit is bad). Illogical.


Pericles
Your first misrepresentation is that it is inconsistent with my views to support Ron Paul’s proposals to decrease government and increase freedom.

Your second misrepresentation is that I am offside to Ron Paul
“Considering [Paul’s] views on "creating an economy"
which you apparently derive from the author’s statement "Ron Paul has said that he does not support ending welfare before an economy is created that makes a welfare state unnecessary."

That is a misrepresentation because neither I nor Paul ever said that Paul envisages the government “creating an economy”. If he did, please cite your quote.

Your third misrepresentation is that, by advocating a greater degree of freedom, libertarians are being “utopian”; I have explained why that’s wrong. (Legislative change is also required for statist programs, but you don’t call them “utopian”. You should.)

Your projection is to tell me what I think:
“why you are actively supporting the continuation of a system that you so clearly despise”…

For all you know, I might think greater freedom under a government complying with the US Constitution, better than the status quo under Obama, without in any way contradicting my views in general.

You assert that any action taken by government must, by definition, be “managing the economy”. Leaving people free to spend their own income as they choose, is presumably “fiscal policy”. And the fact that consensual private adult sex is legal, I suppose, shows the existence of “sexual policy”? According to your line of reasoning, one’s private and consensual sex that the government doesn’t even know about, is just an expression of the government’s “management” of sexuality, since the government has a right of ultimate decision-making, and therefore there is no such thing as a decision or action that is not a product of government.

Reducing your line of reasoning to its absurdity, statists have a right to indefinitely expand their claims against my liberty, even to my life, but it would be inconsistent with my views to make the slightest objection! Needless to say, that’s wrong.

The concept you are completely lacking is: freedom.

Notice how you guys cannot identify any principle on which one has a right to be free of government interference? So it’s no wonder you fall a natural prey to the blandishments of unlimited government. You support forced redistributions *upwards*, because you have no concept of freedom except on the basis of arbitrary government power. You’re proving the libertarian case for me.

Notice how, when someone proposes freedom, you think that’s “utopia” and “pipe-dreams” and “cloud cuckoo land” and not “practical”? The implication is that interventionism is the only practical alternative, even though the state relies for all its revenue on the property that it confiscates from the private sector without which, the state and society would immediately collapse! So your understanding of state and society is completely backward. Society is fructifying; the state is predatory.

At base, your theory is that of Hobbes: society is essentially unworkable, and therefore we need to stoop our neck under an unlimited and absolute Leviathan.

What if you are wrong?

That would explain why it's wrong for you to support military imperialism killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, wouldn’t it? It would make sense of what your own theory of the state and society cannot explain, wouldn't it?

It’s a misrepresentation that you support killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Oh good! - so now you support Ron Paul over Obama do you? Congratulations on your change of mind!

“explain to us [in abolishing the Fed] what actual transactions will stop happening, and what the result will be”

I would be happy to explain and thanks for asking. You never know, once you understand it, you might think it preferable, in terms of social justice for the ordinary worker and society as a whole, to the system of corrupt cronyism over which Obama is presiding (and all the Democrats and Republicans - except Ron Paul -

What if you are wrong?

That would explain why your support of military imperialism is wrong, wouldn’t it? So that would make sense, wouldn’t it, of what your own theory of the state and society cannot explain?

It’s a misrepresentation that you support killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Oh good! - so now you support Ron Paul over Obama do you? Congratulations on your change of mind!

“explain to us [in abolishing the Fed] what actual transactions will stop happening, and what the result will be”

I would be happy to explain so and thanks for asking. You never know, once you understand it, you might think it preferable in terms of social justice for the ordinary worker and society as a whole, to the system of cronyism over which Obama is presiding.

But before I do, can you let us know whether you have read any original works of the Austrian school ? If so, what, and either way, what is your understanding of the Austrian theory of money and credit and critique of the Fed

I see you're struggling to keep up here, Peter Hume, so I'll try to keep it short. Shorter than your essays, anyway.

>>The general issue is whether a vote for Ron Paul would be preferable to a vote for Obama<<

Not really. The "general issue" is whether you would prefer the pandemonium and chaos that Ron Paul's policies would necessarily cause - if any of them were ever implemented - to any continuation of the status quo. The realization that they stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming law is the only excuse you have for advocating support for "Ron Paul’s proposals to decrease government and increase freedom".

Pure cant.

>>You assert that any action taken by government must, by definition, be “managing the economy”<<

Which it is. Either by action or default, whatever they do implies a form of management. Of course, if you do away with government entirely, this would not apply. Do you think that is likely? It certainly doesn't form any part of Ron Paul's manifesto. Even "smaller" government still means you have government. And their proposals to effect change are, by definition, policies, and those policies will necessarily manage the direction of the economy.

>>Reducing your line of reasoning to its absurdity...<<

Try applying that to your own position. Just saying.

>>But before I do, can you let us know whether you have read any original works of the Austrian school?<<

Yes, I have studied them a great deal, thanks to the Arjays and Peter Humes on this Forum, and have been greatly intrigued by them. I certainly comprehend the reasoning behind their antipathy to the Fed.

Your turn now: explain to us [in abolishing the Fed] what actual transactions will stop happening, and what the result will be.

Not the hot air. Just a prediction on the likely changes in daily financial activity.

Maybe a couple of what-if examples as well. Let's say, you want a few billion to open a new mine in WA - how would the Austrian School go about it?

Pericles,

Thank you for taking the time to read the economics of the Mises School. I expect that, however intriguing, it's a dark, lonely job.

Seen from the point of view of a biologist, any school of economics is dubious. It's been several centuries of effort to get to the point where we have sufficient detail on an individual organism, at several levels of organisation (molecular, cellular, individual, ecological), and dawning understanding of how processes at these levels interact in the natural world (let alone including the changing physical, chemical and biological impacts of the build and building world).

While some schools of economics may be progressing beyond the point where their members can be fairly compared with the alchemists (as opposed to the chemists) of 300 years ago, I simply don't have the time or the background to separate the wheat from the chaff.

When the bodies politic have definable anatomies, then I might look more seriously at their economic metabolism.

Yep, von Mises is pretty hard going sometimes, Sir Vivor.

"Modern cryptodespotism, which arrogates to itself the name of liberalism, finds fault with the negativity of the concept of freedom. The censure is spurious as it refers merely to the grammatical form of the idea and does not comprehend that all civil rights can be as well defined in affirmative as in negative terms. They are negative as they are designed to obviate an evil, namely omnipotence of the police power, and to prevent the state from becoming totalitarian. They are affirmative as they are designed to preserve the smooth operation of the system of private property, the only social system that has brought about what is called civilization." Ludwig von Mises, "The Theory of Money and Credit"

Fortunately, we are able to tune in to Peter Hume, who channels both the dynamic insights and vibrant character of von Mises, to which the above excerpt bears witness. They both sing from the same songsheet: if you don't agree with our economic theories, you must be against the concept of liberty.

If you have some spare time, have a quick look through Peter Hume's contributions, and count the number of occasions that he does *not* equate taxation with theft, and government policy with enslavement.

Hint: you won't find any.

It's all so very... smug, Peter Hume.

There you are, relaxing with a glass of Macallans and a Montecristo, railing against capitalism, longing for radical anarchism, knowing full well that the chances of an "Austrian" world are somewhere between buckleys and sod all.

We don't have a perfect system. The checks and balances are often out of kilter, and decisions made on our behalf are often timid, even counter-productive. But I'd sooner have our rickety system than the complete dogs breakfast that you, Ron Paul, and the Austrian School have in mind for us.

Those policies, by the way, would serve only to entrench the existing advantages of the rich and the privileged. Which is why I picture you as a single-malt-swigging plutocrat.

Or do I have that wrong, too?

Dear Pericles,

Have you thought of writing an article for olo? Maybe you have, and I don't know about it. Anyway I appreciate both your ideas and your expression of those ideas.

Thank you david f.

I'm not sure that merely being combative and stubborn necessarily translates into an interesting article. But with your vote of confidence, I'll certainly give it some thought.

Sir Vivor
All your political beliefs are intended to achieve economic ends, namely the supply of goods and services to ends preferred by you – otherwise what are you advocating them for? If you openly deny the possibility of economic science, you are admitting that there is no possibility of the rationality of the policies you advocate, no way of distinguishing cause from effect.

The only way there could not be the possibility of economic theory is if the laws of physics and logic did not have necessary consequences for human action and production possibilities. That is essentially what the statists are arguing. For example Pericles ridicules the idea of abolishing government control of the money supply. The necessary implication is that government is actually creating wealth for society out of nothing by printing pieces of paper. It’s a completely irrational belief; a creationist faith reposed in government.

Pericles
Obviously there’s no point my wasting time explaining Austrian theory to you while you
• assume or assert over and over again that freedom must be necessarily be a worse option than its negation in any given case, without showing reason why but your own assumption or assertion
• circularly insist that freedom does not and cannot exist –all social activity is just by definition the product of governmental management – i.e. the state creates society rather than the other way around
• refuse to admit the logical consequences, and deliberately evade answering the questions that prove the error of this back-to-front belief
• define “practical” to rule out the possibility of freedom, thus cementing your mind shut
• insist that government’s self-granted licence of money printing and handouts to big banks creates net benefits for society, rather than unjust political privilege, without ever giving reason or joining issue
• lard your argument with accusations of lunacy for which you provide no reason but your own *circular* argument
• simultaneously accuse me of “cowardice” for writing too little, and snipe at me for writing too much

• Misrepresent me and mind-read over and over again, then pretend you didn’t, then refuse to admit it, then just repeat the whole procedure
• Pretend to know the future in which case there’s obviously no point in you discussing anything
• Declare that you’re “absolutely certain” Austrian theory is wrong, but when asked to represent what it is, cannot do so and evade answering the question what you understand of it.

So it’s not that you’re *probably* not approaching the issue with an open mind. You’re positively telling us you’re not! Obviously anything I could say would only receive more of the same senseless technique. The fact is, you’re not interested in an honest discussion. If you really want to know what Ron Paul’s policies are, and what difference they would make, look them up yourself!

David f having gone out backwards completely unable to defend his argument, now chimes in to admire Pericles whose argument consists of *nothing but* circularity and ad hominem. What a great advertisement for the statist ideology!

Passy, unable to answer my questions for obvious reasons, first tries to evade them, and then slinks off rather than admit the truth.

So the result is this:
• the libertarians have shown reason, both ethical and pragmatic, why Ron Paul would be better than any other Democrat or Republican candidate, in terms of the left’s own pretended concerns
• statists have no reason why war is better than peace, fascism is better than liberty, and institutionalized fraud better than honest money; all we get is the same rusted-on circular ASSUMPTION that governmental decision-making must be better in any given case without ever joining issue
• they have tried every diversion, evasion, slogan, and slimy tactic possible to try to squirm out of the self-contradiction and consequences of their views
• but still they shrink from admitting they actually prefer Obama’s mass killings, corporate cronyism and police state.

They’ve lost the rational and ethical argument big time; and we can only wonder at their intellectual circularity or dishonesty in promoting what they claim to oppose.

You appear upset, Peter Hume.

>>Obviously anything I could say would only receive more of the same senseless technique<<

I must try harder to meet your exacting standards.

>>Pericles Obviously there’s no point my wasting time explaining Austrian theory to you<<

Hmmmm. Given the circumstances, that sounds awfully like a cop-out to me.

For one, I have read widely on Austrian theory, so you don't need to explain it.

But I have to tell you, that every time I have ever asked a Mises-bot a direct question, they run a mile. Any vague, high-principled-sounding response, it appears, is preferable to addressing the Austrian School's Achilles heel: the theories don't - cannot - translate into actions. A dead letter.

Your list of accusations against me simply underlines this. Austrian School economics look great on paper, but suck when it comes to practical application. They seem to give you licence to bandy around vague concepts about "freedom" without reference to the reality of the world in which we live. We have government. We have had for many centuries. Learn to live with it, with all its frustration and fragility, it isn't going to go away.

>>If you really want to know what Ron Paul’s policies are, and what difference they would make, look them up yourself!<<

As Arjay can attest, I have made a thorough and detailed study of Ron Paul's policies, and would be happy to discuss them individually with you at any time. It was in fact his enthusiasm for the gold standard that reawakened my interest in Austrian School theories, so perhaps instead of throwing mud over the fence at each other, we can start with that one.

What do you say?

Ron Paul thinks that reintroducing the gold standard - or other specie-backed currency - is a good idea for the US economy. What are your views?

Or, if you don't like that one, let's go back to the one I have already asked twice, without luck.

When Ron Paul abolishes the Fed, what transactions will no longer occur, and how will that affect the US economy?

PHume, your viewpoints are interesting up to a point, but as I said, I won't bother you with any more questions.

You will have to find your oxygen elsewhere.

You may consider that a service rendered for free.