# The Media Treatment of Rand Paul - Knee Jerk Reactionism by Mental Midgets **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2010, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445 "2010-05-23T08:12:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/81 "2010-05-23T19:21:21Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Yeah, but Rand Paul is more educated in economics, US history, Middle East history, and all applicable knowledge Yeah, you keep making this claim and yet every time you’ve been challenged to back up your claims about Paul’s education, you haven’t been able to provide anything. Show the course work he’s completed or, at a minimum a statement from him addressing how much time he’s spent and what resources he’s used to self-educate. Otherwise, this claim is just part of the cult of personality. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > When people say that Rand Paul is stupid or ignorant not only is it an insult to him, it is an insult to his father, an insult to me, and an insult to all the great libertarian thinkers throughout the centuries. If your ego is bound up in Rand Paul, there’s a problem. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Here’s what you need to understand. Obama has been bred and pampered for this job for a long time. As that’s not truthful, I’m going to have to refuse to ‘understand’ it. And comparing Obama’s time as a professor of constitutional law and the editor of the Harvard law review to someone simply getting into a school based on legacy status and political clout of their relatives shows that you have an axe to grind against Obama. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Obama understands Constitutional Law? That is laughable. This just demonstrates how vastly separated from reality your political worldview is. The man was a professor of constitutional law at one of the top law schools in the nation. And yet because he disagrees with Ron Paul, he must be an ignorant schmuck, in your world at least. To say nothing of the block of nonsense-text that you’ve just quoted, like claims that “wealth redistribution” via taxation and government spending is unconstitutional. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Constitutional law scholar my ass. Ron Paul is a constitutional law scholar. Again, this shows that your worldview is totally divorced from reality. Ron Paul, who isn’t a constitutional scholar but has a dogmatic view of the constitution that you accept as gospel truth, is an authority according to you. And an actual constitutional scholar like Obama suddenly isn’t, since he disagrees with Paul. When the veracity of a claim is determined by “does Paul agree?”, it’s pretty clear that we’re dealing with a cult of personality. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Many valuable cites are YouTube videos. Wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/82 "2010-05-23T19:21:37Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > _Human Action: A Treatise on Economics_, Ludwig Von Mises, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949 > > _The Road to Serfdom_, Friedrich A. Hayek, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944 > > _Economics in One Lesson_, Henry Hazlitt, New York: Three Rivers Press, 1988 > > _America’s Great Depression_, Murry Rothbard, 5th ed. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000 > > _Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure_, Dominick Armentano, 2nd ed. Oakland, California: Independent Institute, 1990 > > _The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve_, G. Edward Griffin, 4th ed. Westlake Villiage, California: American Media, 2002 > > _Dieing to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism_, Robert Pape, New York: Random House, 2006 > > _The Real Lincoln_, Thomas DiLorenzo. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003 > > _A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics_, Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Springer 1st ed., 1988 > > _The Law_, Frederic Bastiat, Filiquarian Publishing, LLC., 2006 > > _The Case Against the Fed_, Murray N. Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2nd ed., 2007 > > _The Theory of Money and Credit_, Ludwig von Mises, CreateSpace, 2010 > > _A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles_, Thomas Sowell, Basic Books, 2002 This seems like a very narrow reading list. Knowing a particular view of the world very very well doesn’t make you more well-informed than others, regardless that you have read a greater word count than they. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/83 "2010-05-23T19:39:47Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I’m just really sorry you spent so much time reading bad economics. The Road to Serfdom has some good insights, but I think that’s about it. Hayek won the Nobel Prize! I would hope he would provide some good insights. Do you honestly believe all the modern Keynesian economics? How is that working out for us? Double digit unemployment, bubble economies, speculative gambling and Wall Street ripping us off, nearly a thirteen trillion dollar national debt and a severely weakened dollar. Plus, Mises correctly predicted the Great Depression in the mid twenties when no one else did. By the same token, Peter Schiff and Ron Paul, modern day proponents of Austrian Economics, correctly predicted this crises when very few others did. This is what Ron Paul wrote: \*As Paul saw the situation some five years ago, the government backing isolated GSE management from market discipline. If Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, he told the committee, investors would demand the institutions held to higher management and accounting practices. “Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market,” Paul predicted. “This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans. “Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing,” Paul went on. “Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing."\* Spot on. Also, as much as FinnAgain hates it when I post youtube videos, please watch this video of Peter Schiff getting laughed at for being right in 2005-2007: ![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/2I0QN-FYkpw/maxresdefault.jpg)https://www.youtube.com/embed/2I0QN-FYkpw?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque Mainstream economic thought has failed us. A central tenet which allows Austrian economists to predict the cycles of booms and busts is the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle. From Wikipedia: \*\*The Austrian business cycle theory (“ABCT”) attempts to explain business cycles through a set of ideas held by the heterodox Austrian School of economics. The theory views business cycles (or, as some Austrians prefer, “credit cycles”) as the inevitable consequence of excessive growth in bank credit, exacerbated by inherently damaging and ineffective central bank policies, which cause interest rates to remain too low for too long, resulting in excessive credit creation, speculative economic bubbles and lowered savings.[1] Austrians believe that a sustained period of low interest rates and excessive credit creation results in a volatile and unstable imbalance between saving and investment.[2] According to the theory, the business cycle unfolds in the following way: Low interest rates tend to stimulate borrowing from the banking system. This expansion of credit causes an expansion of the supply of money, through the money creation process in a fractional reserve banking system. It is asserted that this leads to an unsustainable credit-sourced boom during which the artificially stimulated borrowing seeks out diminishing investment opportunities. Though disputed, proponents hold that a credit-sourced boom results in widespread malinvestments. In the theory, a correction or “credit crunch” – commonly called a “recession” or “bust” – occurs when exponential credit creation cannot be sustained. Then the money supply suddenly and sharply contracts when markets finally “clear”, causing resources to be reallocated back towards more efficient uses. Given these perceived damaging and disruptive effects caused by what Austrian scholars believe to be volatile and unsustainable growth in credit-sourced money, many proponents (such as Murray Rothbard) advocate either heavy regulation of the banking system (strictly enforcing a policy of full reserves on the banks) or, more often, free banking.[3] The main proponents of the Austrian business cycle theory historically were Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Hayek won a Nobel Prize in economics in 1974 (shared with Gunnar Myrdal) in part for his work on this theory.[4][5]\*\* Its pretty clear to me that when a central bank artificially lowers interest rates, encourages malinvestment and misallocation of credit, it distorts the free market and results in an unsustainable boom period. Inevitably this results in a bust causing much pain and hardship. Furthermore, it fools people into thinking they have savings when in fact they have none. The signals of the free market are important because supply and demand and free people engaging in mutually beneficial economic activity drive growth though savings and production. That is, producing things that there is a demand for and investing in said productive capacity through savings and reserves as opposed to fiat money printed from a government printing press. The worst thing that Keynesian economics produces over time is expansion of governmental power and exploding deficits given the opportunity to simply monetize debt. And the dollar perpetually loses value because there is no oversight of the Federal Reserve and no restraint on the printing press. Not sure what qualifies the only economic philosophy that got it right “bad economics” in your eyes but perhaps you can elaborate. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/84 "2010-05-23T19:42:00Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > I never said I didn’t want people who disagree with me to post. That is far from the truth. I don’t event mind sarcastic tones as long as there is some thought involved. Like I said, if anybody will actually respond with intelligent counterpoints and cites and links, I will critique them carefully and thoroughly. I just want a reasonably civil and intellectual debate when I post on this forum. > > Not too much to ask I don’t think. You’re missing my point. This is already a moderated message board. You say you want a “reasonably civil and intellectual debate”, and ask for posters to constrain themselves above and beyond the board’s normal rules. Yet, within the restricive framework you suggest, you extoll the virtues of a world with few restrictions. You ask that a racist lunch-counter owner be allowed to expose himself for who he is, so that the enlightened masses me see him and shun him. So why not conduct this debate by the same rules? Let the name-callers show their true colors, so that they may be there for all to see. Surely this debate would be even more productive on some other message board, with no limitations on speech, sock puppets, etc. Your critics would be out in the open for all to see, your wisdom would shine through like a beacon, and the masses would rally to your cause. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/85 "2010-05-23T19:42:05Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > This is a very valid point and one that many libertarians disagree about. But there are plenty of Pro Life libertarians. I think Rand Paul’s position on abortion is similar to his fathers in that he believes the Federal government should stay out of the issue entirely. [Wrong.](http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/a-g/abortion-2/) > [@](#): > > am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. > I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life. > I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. > I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. > [@](#): > > I cannot believe that the son of Ron Paul, who is so vehemently anti war, would be a complete war hawk. I don’t see him as a hawk either, but I don’t see what his father’s position on the issue has to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/86 "2010-05-23T20:24:21Z")
You do know that Keynesian economics also predicts business cycles? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/87 "2010-05-23T20:31:01Z")
If he is/was against the Patriot Act, and if he is/was against “wars of empire” (not a hawk), those are things in his favor I think. What his father thinks, is irrelevant. Pops Paul isn’t running for office, the Younger Paul is. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/88 "2010-05-23T20:32:29Z")
The OP’s argument boils down to something bad happened under our current system, so if we try this totally different system everything will be better, and no it’s never been done before, but trust me it’ll be great. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/89 "2010-05-23T21:30:52Z")
Your OP is rhetorical Tourettes. You need to focus on the main points of the debate, and keep your points concise if you wish to be taken seriously in conversations about political philosophies. Backing up and releasing a creaky, overloaded dump truck of talking points in the apparent hope it will make the mocking naysayers flee the premises like terrified natives fleeing the Mighty Kong is kind of a silly expectation, but then again Libertarians are noted for those. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/90 "2010-05-23T21:44:21Z")
The LaRouchies, supporters of the aging Lyndon LaRouche have been doing this a lot better a lot longer. Hayak got a Nobel Prize for writing a comic book of economics denouncing inflation. Krugman more recently got a Nobel Prize. He denounces Libertarianism. Here are some of his blog pieces. We all know that Libtards won’t bother to agree with them. [http://blog.santafe.edu/?p=150](http://blog.santafe.edu/?p=150) [http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/why-libertarianism-doesnt-work-part-n1/](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/why-libertarianism-doesnt-work-part-n1/) [http://blog.santafe.edu/?p=150](http://blog.santafe.edu/?p=150) [http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/leverage-for-real/](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/leverage-for-real/) [http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/opinion/02krugman.html?\_r=1](http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/opinion/02krugman.html?_r=1) The Austrian school is full of apologists for raping the environment, encouraging the idea of litigation (but not real litigation) and allowing racism to run rampant because the magic hand of the market will correct all that trivial stuff. Well bullshit. The invisible hand has been functioning since the dawn of civilization (supposedly) and racism isn’t gone and isn’t going away. It is correctly legislated against. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/91 "2010-05-23T21:47:40Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I support access to abortion, but you are completely right. Libertarians have a legitimate position both ways. No they don’t. If I let the poor starve because I refuse to feed them that isn’t murder. If I refuse to provide life support for a fetus, that isn’t murder. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/92 "2010-05-23T21:49:55Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > The invisible hand has been functioning since the dawn of civilization (supposedly) and racism isn’t gone and isn’t going away. It is correctly legislated against. The invisible hand has only been working since about 1800 and racism has significantly decreased in that time period. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/93 "2010-05-23T22:00:01Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > 1. The Czars > The appointment of the many “czars” by the Obama administration are unconstitutional. [Wrong.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar_%28political_term%29) > [@Wikipedia](#): > > At October 2009 hearings before the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, constitutional experts asserted that there was nothing wrong with presidents appointing independent advisors, as long as their authority was exerted in practical, not legal, terms. Of course, if you want to argue that their authority DOES have legal force, you can certainly legitimately attempt to. But the way you’re expressing this makes you look like you’re arguing that their _very existence_ is unconstitutional. There is significant disagreement on that. (I won’t even get into Bush or past Presidents doing this, because as a self-proclaimed libertarian, you probably aren’t interested.) ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/94 "2010-05-23T22:15:31Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > [Wrong.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar_%28political_term%29) > > Of course, if you want to argue that their authority DOES have legal force, you can certainly legitimately attempt to. But the way you’re expressing this makes you look like you’re arguing that their _very existence_ is unconstitutional. There is significant disagreement on that. > > (I won’t even get into Bush or past Presidents doing this, because as a self-proclaimed libertarian, you probably aren’t interested.) This czar nonsense is one of the stupidest criticisms of Obama. Whether something is constitutional or not does not depend on whether the press decides to informally call the czars. It makes anyone objecting to it look foolish. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/95 "2010-05-23T22:18:48Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The invisible hand has only been working since about 1800 and racism has significantly decreased in that time period. So Adam Smith “created” the invisible hand? I thought he just described it. Was there gravity before Newton, or did things just float around? Maybe that explains how dinosaurs could be so big. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/96 "2010-05-23T22:27:29Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > So Adam Smith “created” the invisible hand? I thought he just described it. Was there gravity before Newton, or did things just float around? Maybe that explains how dinosaurs could be so big. I think it’s fair to say that the “invisible hand” was tolerated in in a limited fashion until Adam Smith convinced enough people that it should be encouraged and not discouraged. And even then, the acceptance was still spotty. Allowing prices and wages to be set by the market and working towards lower (or no) tariffs are all relatively modern ideas that would have seemed crazy to people in earlier times. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/97 "2010-05-23T22:29:52Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think it’s fair to say that the “invisible hand” was tolerated in in a limited fashion until Adam Smith convinced enough people that it should be encouraged and not discouraged. And even then, the acceptance was still spotty. Allowing prices and wages to be set by the market and working towards lower (or no) tariffs are all relatively modern ideas that would have seemed crazy to people in earlier times. Really? You don’t think prices were set by the market back when farmers went to town to sell their goods? ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/98 "2010-05-23T22:31:02Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Is Pastafarian music as much fun as Rastafarian music? No. It’s impossible to sing along or dance to all that infernal noodling. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/99 "2010-05-23T22:42:39Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > So Adam Smith “created” the invisible hand? I thought he just described it. Was there gravity before Newton, or did things just float around? Capitalism more-or-less came about on its own, but that wasn’t until practically Adam Smith’s time. Prior to that, [mercantilism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism) was the order of the day. Besides the government not treating economics as a zero-sum game, the open market also presumes a few ground rules: 1. Private ownership 2. Loans 3. Corporations Loans were more-or-less forbidden until the mid-16th century in Europe, only the nobility truly owned anything, the assembly of peasants was viewed as dangerous, and becoming wealthy was viewed as the quickest course to Hell. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445/100 "2010-05-23T22:44:08Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I was going to try to construct an argument against the OP, but knowing that he read those books with a highlighter, I am sure my efforts would be futile. > > Plus, TLDR. Too libertarian, didn’t read. He probably used a whole set of highlighters, for color-coding. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-media-treatment-of-rand-paul-knee-jerk-reactionism-by-mental-midgets/540445.md?page=6)