# This One's for The Obama Loyalists, Pay Attention. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784 "2010-08-19T20:08:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/521 "2010-08-29T23:47:41Z")
> [@](#): > > The fact that you could make this statement, suggesting that the linked article does anything but deride and debunk the thesis you support, shows just how deeply your cognitive dissonance is entrenched. It takes absolutely herculean twisting of logic and complete blindness to facts for “many” to “come to that conclusion”. Did you look at any of my links? Did you watch that documentary? By that comment I meant that the article is not very convincing and goes into great detail to “debunk” the true points that would lead one to believe that FDR knew of the attack on Pearl Harbor beforehand. Once you read my links and post back here, we can continue this conversation. > [@](#): > > Uh huh. Exploitation would be the rare exception rather than the rule, huh? Just like throughout history, right? The rising tide floats all boats, does it? Too bad the rich peoples’ boats just get more and more palatial, while everybody else has to crowd onto the fewer and fewer crappy rafts remaining afloat. How about exploitation BY the government? Okay, please read this entire article and get back to me, okay?: > [@](#): > > **Classical Economics vs. The Exploitation Theory** > > For more than a century, one of the most popular economic doctrines in the world has been the exploitation theory. According to this theory, capitalism is a system of virtual slavery, serving the narrow interests of a comparative handful of businessmen and capitalists, who, driven by insatiable greed and power lust, exist as parasites upon the labor of the masses. > > This view of capitalism has not been the least bit shaken by the steady rise in the average standard of living that has taken place in the capitalist countries since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The rise in the standard of living is not attributed to capitalism, but precisely to the infringements which have been made upon capitalism. People attribute economic progress to labor unions and social legislation, and to what they consider to be improved personal ethics on the part of employers. > > By the same token, they tremble at the thought of unions not existing, of a society without minimum wage laws, maximum hours legislation, and child labor laws—at the thought of a society in which no legal obstacles stood in the way of employers pursuing their self-interest. In the absence of such legislation, people believe, wage rates would return to the minimum subsistence level; women and children would labor once more in the mines; and the hours of work would be as long and as hard as it is possible for human beings to bear—all for the benefit of the capitalists, precisely as Marx maintained. > > \*\*The Exploitation Theory and the Overthrow of Classical Economics \*\* > > It is obvious that the exploitation theory is one of the most powerful factors that have been operating to lead the world down The Road to Serfdom —as the title of Prof. Hayek’s book so aptly describes the trend toward socialism. [1] Indeed, the pernicious influence of the exploitation theory goes far beyond the direct and obvious support it gives to socialism. It has contributed to the triumph of socialism in more subtle ways, as well. It played a major, perhaps the decisive, role in the overthrow of British classical economics. The system of Smith and Ricardo was perceived as inescapably implying the essential tenets of the exploitation theory. The opponents of the exploitation theory, therefore, quite understandably felt obliged to discard such a perverse system. And discard it they did. > > Along with “the labor theory of value” and the “iron law of wages,” they discarded such further features of classical political economy as the wages fund doctrine and its corollary that savings and capital are the source of almost all spending in the economic system. Two generations later, the abandonment of the classical doctrines on saving made possible the acceptance of Keynesianism and the policy of inflation, deficits, and ever expanding government spending. In similarly paradoxical fashion, the abandonment of the classical doctrine that cost of production, rather than supply and demand, is the direct (if not the ultimate) determinant of the prices of most manufactured or processed goods led, with just about the same time lag, to the promulgation of the doctrines of “pure and perfect competition,” “oligopoly,” “monopolistic competition,” and “administered prices,” with their implicit call for a policy of radical antitrust or outright nationalizations to “curb the abuses of big business.” Thus, along these two further paths, the influence of the exploitation theory has served to advance the cause of socialism. > … > **Exploitation and Socialism** > > As a final irony it turns out not only that capitalism is not a system of the exploitation of labor, but that the actual system of the exploitation of labor is socialism. Socialism establishes the very kind of exploitation for the alleged existence of which people seek to overthrow capitalism. > The socialist state holds a universal monopoly on employment and production. Its citizens are economically powerless in their capacity both as workers and as consumers. No economic factor compels the socialist state to take account of their wishes. From an economic point of view, the rulers of the socialist state need be concerned with the values of the citizens only insofar as it needs them to have the health and strength required to work. > > Moreover, the leading moral-political principle of the socialist state is that the citizen is not an end in himself, as he is acknowledged to be under capitalism, but is a means to the ends of “society.” Since society does not inhabit any known mountain top, and cannot be communicated with in any direct way, its ends can be made known only through the rulers of the socialist state. Thus, the principle that the individual is the means to the ends of society necessarily means, in practice, that he is the means to the ends of society as divined, interpreted, and determined by the rulers of the socialist state. And what this means is that he is the means to the ends of the rulers. A more servile arrangement can hardly be imagined. > > Thus, the position of the individual under socialism is that he must spend his life in toil for the ends of the rulers, who have no reason voluntarily to supply him with anything more than minimum physical subsistence. They will provide more (assuming they have the ability to do so) only if it is necessary to prevent riots or revolution or as a means of providing special incentives for the achievement of their own values, such as, above all, the power and prestige of the regime. Thus, they will provide a relatively high standard of living for rocket scientists, secret police agents, and such intellectuals and athletes whose accomplishments help to reflect glory on the regime. The average citizen, however, is fortunate if they provide him with subsistence. He is fortunate, because, as Mises and Hayek have shown, the economic discoordination and chaos of socialism is so great that in the absence of an outside capitalist world to turn to for aid, socialism would lead to the destruction of the division of labor and hence to a reversion to the primitive economic conditions of feudalism. To borrow some of the clichés of Marxism and use them truthfully for once, socialism “cannot even maintain its slaves in their slavery”; left to its own devices, it causes the average worker “to sink deeper and deeper into poverty,” until mass depopulation occurs.[23] > > **Summary and Conclusion** > > Despite the support which it historically gave to the exploitation theory, classical economics provides the basis for turning the exploitation theory upside down. On the basis of Ricardo’s concept of profit and J. S. Mill’s proposition that “demand for commodities is not demand for labour,” it makes it possible to show how profits, not wages, must be regarded as the original and primary form of income, from which other incomes emerge as a deduction. And, further, not only how profits are a labor income (despite their variation with the size of the capital invested and the period of time for which it is invested), but how the labor of businessmen and capitalists has more fundamental responsibility for the production of products than the labor of wage earners, with the result that “labor’s right to the whole produce” should mean the right of businessmen and capitalists to the sales receipts—a right which is honored every day, in the normal operations of a capitalist economy. In addition, the classical doctrines of supply and demand, the wage fund, the distinction between value and riches, and even the labor theory of value (appropriately modified along lines suggested by Ricardo and J. S. Mill and incorporating the advances in price theory made by Böhm-Bawerk) make possible an explanation of real wages based on the productivity of labor, which it is the economic function of businessmen and capitalists steadily to increase. Finally, it can be shown how socialism, with its universal state monopoly on employment and supply, is the economic system to which the exploitation theory actually applies. Read the rest: [http://mises.org/daily/1729](http://mises.org/daily/1729) > [@](#): > > “Myths” of the evils of the market?!!? To this I can only offer hysterical laughter. Please tell the child laborers and other literal wage slaves of your halcyon 19th century how lucky they really were to be exploited, worked into debilitation, injured and crippled, then cast aside and replaced by others. Hell, tell it to coal miners today, for whom, despite government “interference”, life isn’t markedly different from that of their forebears in the dawn of the industrial revolution. > > You load sixteen tons, what do you get? > Another day older and deeper in debt. > Saint Peter, don’t you call me, 'cause I can’t go; > I owe my soul to the company store. > > This is the true ideal of free market advocates. You should perhaps lessen your blind adulation for your Austrian heroes and learn a bit more about the real world around you. Where did you go to school? Child laborers and wage slaves? For the sake of argument, suppose I endorse laws against child labor and basic safety regulations, but no more. How in your mind, in a true free market with a stable dollar and high productive capacity would this fantasy land of endless exploitation by greedy capitalists and businessmen operate? Don’t you understand that in the absence of government subsidies and regulation, businessmen grow wealthy by provided value to others? Really, read the above linked article. It does a pretty good job destroying the propagandistic version of history you were taught in school. **I want to hear your full rebuttal of the contents of that article.** ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/522 "2010-08-30T00:17:55Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > [\ > **I want to hear your full rebuttal of the contents of that article.** You’ll get a full rebuttal when you present a full thesis of your own, not some multi-page quotation from one or another of your heroes. I’m tired of your constant insults. You have zero idea of my background, and zero authority to denigrate it. Disagreement with you does not equate to being incorrect. I remember being twenty five years old, and believing that I really understood the world and knew everything about it. I hope that I wasn’t as insufferable then as you are now. But regardless, I’ve learned quite a lot in the interim. Enough to know just how little I really did know, and how little I really understood. Perhaps some day you too will become less obnoxious and more – well, if not wise, at least experienced. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/523 "2010-08-30T00:19:48Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > So, hows that recovery going? I’m sure not feeling it. The truth is they can always say how bad it would have been if they hadn’t done what they did, bailing everyone out. You are just taking their word for it. Is there some point where you would say, “maybe what they are doing is making it worse”?. That is the truth. Big companies and banks, with lots of political pull, got bailed out. They didn’t want to lose their personal wealth, so they made up some bullshit about how it would devastate the larger economy and things would be terrible. Do you understand the concept of allowing the correction to occur and why that is necessary? Why should we buy up toxic assets and dump them on the taxpayers? > > Nice job of trying to change the subject. So, you admit you were wrong about the bailout money being paid back? And we don’t have to guess what would have happened if the banks were allowed to fail. We could see the reaction of the market to Lehman failing, which is what made bailing out the rest imperative. Or do you refuse to acknowledge this, the way you refuse to acknowledge what the inflation rate is because it doesn’t support your biases? No, bailing out the banks was not necessary. Okay, so the fed easy money creates a giant bubble right? Its unsustainable. The laws of economics say that this bubble must deflate. With that deflation, there will be some pain and agony as the economy rebalances and fiscal discipline and a solid foundation are restored. THIS MARKET CORRECTION HAS TO OCCUR!! There is no getting around that fact. By reinflating the bubble, the government has only prevented the inevitable and in the process made the necessary correction that much larger and more painful. Does this make any sense to you? By preventing the correction the pain is drawn out and exacerbated. We KNOW the debt will have to be paid one way or the other, the day of reckoning is coming. The dangers of Keynesian policies is once a large enough crisis hits, and the stimulus policies fail to work, the Fed will print more and more money threatening hyperinflation. As painful in the short term as a market correction may be, it is far better to have it now that later or destroy the dollar through endless printing of money. > [@](#): > > I do blame the people who created this crisis, who are the anti-regulation anti-tax conservative Republicans. Keynes never said that you should run a deficit in times of prosperity. Good for the Austrians for predicting the problem, but Krugman did also. The people who ignored it were the banks, who were making a fortune, and the Republicans, who bought the banks’ argument that pulling their faces out of the trough would make them uncompetitive. Remember, before Bush cut taxes we had a surplus. That came about through traditional economics. The Republican party bought into Keynesianism whole heartedly from Nixon onward. There hasn’t been significant differences in economic policy for decades. We actually didn’t have a true surplus in the 90s, we had a bubble. That bubble burst in 2000, but was promptly reinflated. The surplus was, in fact a hoax. Read this: > **[Mises Daily | Mises Institute](https://mises.org/mises-daily)** > [@](#): > > Yes, I read that claim and consider it to be a pile of crap. You’ve already been shown, and have ignored, the data showing unemployment decreased with New Deal policies, only increasing again when FDR was convinced to try to balance the budget. You’ve also ignored the inconvenient fact that letting the economy fend for itself for 3 years after the crash only made things worse. You are like the rainmaker who will take credit for the rain no matter how long it takes to show up after his dance. The unemployment numbers are immaterial. The issue is allowing the market correction to occur and the liquidation of bad debt. There was high employment during WWII and war is never good for the economy. You haven’t addressed the point I made about the Depression of 1920-21 in which government pursued a hands off approach and we experienced a prompt recovery. My policies have clearly worked in practice but yours have not. > [@](#): > > What about the debt? The debt, very large from WW II, decreased steadily in the '50s due to a high tax rate and prosperity - very Keynsian. It only became a big problem due to Reagan and his tax cutting, and an even bigger one with Bush’s tax cutting, neither of which was necessary to combat a slump. Actually it increased steadily. The issue is the linking to gold. Until the breakdown of the bretton woods agreement in 1971, there was a limit to the creation of money. After that point the deficits and national debt skyrocketed. But as the Austrians could tell you, that is the inevitable conclusion of central banking and interventionist economics. The Fed has existed for one hundred years and you point to a mere fifteen-twenty year period of moderate success as far as the debt is concerned? Thats not a very good track record. > [@](#): > > Back in the good old days you could be arrested for selling gold for higher than the government price. (Or it was at least illegal.) The government of course influences the price of our currency in a number of ways, but it cannot control what the currency traders do. The market provides valuable information about the state of the economy and trade, something beyond what a few politicians and administrators setting the value of the dollar are able to do. Why do you think they can do a better job than the market? If you don’t understand that government control of prices and the market is socialistic, (not socialism per se) you don’t understand much. > > As for private currencies, how exactly do you propose to prevent the issuance of bad money? And does your free market in banking look anything like the free market we had in the 1980’s, which led to that crisis, or the one in the '20s, which led to bank runs? Government would not be controlling prices and the market. You are really confused here. I can only suggest you spend some time reading about sound money to understand these issues. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/524 "2010-08-30T00:26:02Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > You know, there is some ignorance that is so deeply ingrained that rational discussion becomes counterproductive. I don’t know how to respond to such bullshit as “bernanke is an expert on the Great Depression”. He is a fraud and a phony. He is a corporatist and and has created economic ruin and he is leading us on the path to hyperinflation. How about this: > > > > Why did he fail to see this crisis coming? Watch this video: > > > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ79Pt2GNJo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ79Pt2GNJo) > > **I want you to respond to the above video specifically. Tell me precisely why you trust this guy given his track record?** > > What part of “appointed by Bush” don’t you understand? Did Paul call for action to deflate the housing bubble? If not, he is attacking Bernanke for the stuff he did right, not the stuff he (and Greenspan) got wrong. None of which has anything to do with the cold hard fact that he did major research on the Depression, and is an expert by any criteria - though he no doubt disputes that leaving things around would have fixed it, and is thus a heretic to your faith. > > And why is Reagan a traitor again? Yeah, appointed by Bush and reappointed by Obama. There is no difference between the parties. Ron Paul criticized him continually over the years for his role in inflating the housing bubble and many other issues. Just search Ron Paul vs Bernanke on youtube and you will see a number of fascinating exchanges. Some consider Reagan a traitor because he tarnished the name of Free Markets in peoples minds by rhetorically claiming to be for small government, but in actuality pursuing policies that were the opposite. Therefore people like you claim that “free markets failed” because of the disaster caused by the Reagan administration. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/525 "2010-08-30T00:30:27Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Okay, but what about my larger point? Can’t I have a rational concern that people are given too many vaccines? > > Not until you provide scientific evidence of what constitutes “too many.” Possibly. It tends to depend on the amount of money they spent on R&D plus testing vs how much they can recover through sales. Can you provide actual details of companies “making a bundle” off vaccines (along with evidence that money made from low-cost vaccines, (if there are any) is not used to offset the expenses of drugs for cancer, etc.? > Do you have any examples of such? (Preferably from someone other than Jenny McCarthy or the quacks she tends to cite.) > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > If you claim there are certain illnesses that are deadly and people should be vaccinated, then that is a reasonable point. It is not reasonable to blindly support vaccinations for every single disease, including ones that people are highly unlikely to ever encounter. > > This might possibly be true, but then, what are your guidelines for diseases against which we are ordering massive vaccinations that are unlikely to be encountered? (In my experience, we do not vaccinate against rabies, for example, except those people who are going to work for extended periods with wild animals with known vectors, (_e.g._, bat researchers). Similarly, vaccines against Typhoid and similar diseases are routinely offered to people traveling to world locations where such diseases are prevalent and are not generally administered (or even offered) to people staying in the U.S.) Is your hypothetical based on anything that actually occurs in the real world?) You know, I don’t really want to get into the vaccination thing on this thread. It is more a matter of opinion and personal preference. I have read a number of articles by doctors and scientists warning about the negative effects of long term vaccinations. I may link to some here at another point. But its perfectly fine if you believe in vaccines. I just have a problem when the government is mandating I do ANYTHING in relation to my personal health care. I should still have some choice in the matter. If the government can inject anything into my arm, then I am not free. That is how I look at it. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/526 "2010-08-30T00:39:51Z")
> [@Pashnish\_Ewing](#): > > Does anyone else get the impression that when **jrodefeld** was a kid, and was assigned a book report on _Tom Sawyer_, that he turned in a copy of the book with a note that said “The attached book will tell you everything you need to know about _Tom Sawyer_”? > > And that his term papers were a title page followed by the bibliography? > > Seriousy, **jrodefeld** , if you can’t address the simple counterpoints to your gold standard ideas _without linking to something else_, why should I take you seriously? Notice that the posters countering your points have done so in their own words, without having to resort to links or youtube videos. Why do you think that is? I think I have demonstrated an ability to easily articulate a defense of these positions that I am taking. Sometimes I know of another author who offers such a simple and articulate explanation of a problem that I know I can’t improve on it, so I link to it. The goal here is to defend my positions. If another author proves my point, then why would you have a problem with me linking to them? I am trying to establish that it is not just me randomly taking positions, but there is a long line of intellectual scholars behind what I say. I can clearly articulate a defense of every postion I have taken. But there are youtube videos and other articles which back up my point. You don’t have to read the links. They are there for those who want to learn more. The point is you DON’T have to take my word for it. You can read from others as well. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/527 "2010-08-30T00:43:09Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > If the government can inject anything into my arm, then I am not free. The government has never had mandatory vaccinations. You are free to be home schooled if vaccinations are considered tyrannical in your religion. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/528 "2010-08-30T00:44:43Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Yes, we are. We have democratic elections. But our government is a Constitutional Republic. Okay? > > So you were wrong when you said people vote for their own self interest, at the expense of the liberty of others; is that your admission now? > > Everything the Obama Administration has proposed is consistent with a Constitutional Republic. Anyone who disagrees may avail themselves of the constitutionally mandated remedies, and file a federal lawsuit. The Supreme Court, as authorized under ther Constitution, is the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of any law passed by Congress. > > You, on the other hand, have no Consitutional authority to decide what is consistent with a constitutional republic, nor do you have any better insight into the intent of the Founders than the Supreme Court. If you somehow decide that the democratic process as codified in the Constitution is tyranny, you may engage in whatever civil disobedience floats your boat. But, short of taking up arms, it will not change the political system, because we are abiding by the process provided in the Constitution, and you are not. > > Do you understand? :eek::eek::eek: Holy shit. “Everything the Obama Administration has proposed is consistent with a Constitutional Republic.” I’ll just stop right there. I need a minute. … You have got to be fucking shitting me. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The wars are unconstitutional (only congress can declare war), the health care bill is unconstitutional (the mandate), suspension of habeas corpus is a violation of the bill of rights, and there is so much more it would take multiple pages to chronicle the constitutional violations perpetrated by the Obama Administration. And yes, it is not hard to objectively figure out what the framers intended by the Constitution. If the Supreme Court decreed that the sky was orange, would you believe them or your own eyes? That is what you are arguing here. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/529 "2010-08-30T00:48:24Z")
Would you have rejected the polio vaccine? You have to know it defeated a disease that crippled and killed a lot of kids at one time. Now it is gone. Do you have a right to allow your kids to get crippled because of your distorted concept of personal rights to make a decision for yourself, no matter how damaging and stupid it would be? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/530 "2010-08-30T00:52:54Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Yes, but if you say that that allows the government to spend that money on ANYTHING, you are dead wrong. The Constitution allows the collection of revenue through taxes to fund the expressly limited functions delegated in the Constitution. > > Any law that exceeded the functions delegated by the Constitutional would be unconstitutional, would it not? So why haven’t all these unconstitutional laws been challenged in federal court, and overturned by the Supreme Court? > > The fact is, whenever the current laws have been challenged, the Supreme Court (or a lesser court), authorized by the Constitution, have confirmed the laws under the Constitution. The system works! > > Your opinion is just that; a minority opinion, that is contrary to the Constitution, and really not worthy of consideration. We have activist judges you will interpret the Constitution so broadly as for it to have no meaning whatsoever. The founders advocated that the states had an ability to nullify unconstitutional laws. They believed that more than one authority should be allowed to interpret the constitution. If I read the constitution and it says that, “only congress shall declare war” and the Supreme Court says that the Iraq war is Constitutional, I know they are wrong. The function of the Supreme Court is to safeguard the constitution. They are not always right in their interpretation. The people need to defend the Constitution as well. Every federal official takes an oath to defend the Constitution. Any of us can read the constitution and see what it says. It is our job to elect Supreme Court nominees who will interpret the Constitution correctly. Sadly, we haven’t been doing a very good job. Thats why I believe the people and the States should be allowed to Nullify unconstitutional federal laws. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/531 "2010-08-30T00:54:10Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > The people through the Constitution. > > That is meaningless. The Constitution does not make the law; the Congress makes the law, and the people elect their representatives. All under the authority of the Constitution. Representative democracy is enshrined in the Constitution, and mere gainsaying that fact will not change it. We are a Democracy. We are a Republic. Just the way the Founders intended. Do you agree that under our system, the way the founders intended, there are certain things the Federal Government CANNOT do no matter what? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/532 "2010-08-30T01:01:50Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > We wouldn’t have those kinds of economies. > > What is to prevent it? Good intentions? Feudalism is the ultimate culmination of the free market you envision. Those who do not own property become the economic slaves of those who do. Submit to your liegelord, or starve. Having done away with all the regulations that limit ‘consensual’ agreements, there can be no other outcome. Desperate, starving people will submit to slavery, and property owners will perpetuate the system that keeps the poor powerless, because it is in their economic interest. > > Of course, eventually, the poor rise up with the power of sheer numbers, drag the property owners into the streets and burn tires around their necks. That is how your vision of liberty always ends. Jesus, put down the propaganda and fear mongering for a second. I find it hilarious how your mind works. I say freedom, you think slavery. I say property rights, you think exploitation. I say sound money, you think anarchy and economy ruin. Do you have any fear of abusive governments? Or do you save all your fear and hysteria for railing against freedom and property rights? There is none so blind as those who choose not to see. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/533 "2010-08-30T01:09:09Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > [\ > > **I want to hear your full rebuttal of the contents of that article.** > > You’ll get a full rebuttal when you present a full thesis of your own, not some multi-page quotation from one or another of your heroes. > > I’m tired of your constant insults. You have zero idea of my background, and zero authority to denigrate it. Disagreement with you does not equate to being incorrect. > > I remember being twenty five years old, and believing that I really understood the world and knew everything about it. I hope that I wasn’t as insufferable then as you are now. But regardless, I’ve learned quite a lot in the interim. Enough to know just how little I really did know, and how little I really understood. Perhaps some day you too will become less obnoxious and more – well, if not wise, at least experienced. I am sure I will grow and become more wise as I get older. This is a debate and I want people to respond to the points I make. What is wrong with linking to another article? The reason I do it is that I can’t fully articulate all the complex points I want to make in the limited space I have here. Plus, there are many articles and quotations of brilliant men who can express certain ideas better than I can. If they support my points, why shouldn’t I link to it? Don’t take the insults personally. I don’t mean anything by it, I just get carried away at times. No offense is intended. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/534 "2010-08-30T01:10:38Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > > So you were wrong when you said people vote for their own self interest, at the expense of the liberty of others; is that your admission now? > > > > Everything the Obama Administration has proposed is consistent with a Constitutional Republic. Anyone who disagrees may avail themselves of the constitutionally mandated remedies, and file a federal lawsuit. The Supreme Court, as authorized under ther Constitution, is the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of any law passed by Congress. > > > > You, on the other hand, have no Consitutional authority to decide what is consistent with a constitutional republic, nor do you have any better insight into the intent of the Founders than the Supreme Court. If you somehow decide that the democratic process as codified in the Constitution is tyranny, you may engage in whatever civil disobedience floats your boat. But, short of taking up arms, it will not change the political system, because we are abiding by the process provided in the Constitution, and you are not. > > > > Do you understand? > > :eek::eek::eek: Holy shit. “Everything the Obama Administration has proposed is consistent with a Constitutional Republic.” I’ll just stop right there. I need a minute. > > … > > You have got to be fucking shitting me. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The wars are unconstitutional (only congress can declare war), the health care bill is unconstitutional (the mandate), suspension of habeas corpus is a violation of the bill of rights, and there is so much more it would take multiple pages to chronicle the constitutional violations perpetrated by the Obama Administration. So why have none of those grievous tyrannies been overturned by the Supreme Court? It’s not like all of these things happened in a vacuum. You have so little faith in the Constitution, you cannot accept that the system could possibly right a wrong within the process provided by the Constitution, so the only recourse is nullification and civil disobedience. > [@](#): > > And yes, it is not hard to objectively figure out what the framers intended by the Constitution. And yet you think it is impossible for either a majority in Congress, the President, or at least five members of the Supreme Court to figure out. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/535 "2010-08-30T01:13:52Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > If the government can inject anything into my arm, then I am not free. > > The government has never had mandatory vaccinations. You are free to be home schooled if vaccinations are considered tyrannical in your religion. Free to be home schooled? Do you think that is a rational choice for most people? The choice of education and vaccinations or no education and no vaccinations is no choice at all. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/536 "2010-08-30T01:15:26Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Would you have rejected the polio vaccine? You have to know it defeated a disease that crippled and killed a lot of kids at one time. Now it is gone. Do you have a right to allow your kids to get crippled because of your distorted concept of personal rights to make a decision for yourself, no matter how damaging and stupid it would be? No, I probably would not have rejected the polio vaccine. Thats not the point. If something makes sense, there should be no reason to mandate a person get it. They will do it on their own. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/537 "2010-08-30T01:19:07Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > :eek::eek::eek: Holy shit. “Everything the Obama Administration has proposed is consistent with a Constitutional Republic.” I’ll just stop right there. I need a minute. > > > > … > > > > You have got to be fucking shitting me. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The wars are unconstitutional (only congress can declare war), the health care bill is unconstitutional (the mandate), suspension of habeas corpus is a violation of the bill of rights, and there is so much more it would take multiple pages to chronicle the constitutional violations perpetrated by the Obama Administration. > > So why have none of those grievous tyrannies been overturned by the Supreme Court? It’s not like all of these things happened in a vacuum. You have so little faith in the Constitution, you cannot accept that the system could possibly right a wrong within the process provided by the Constitution, so the only recourse is nullification and civil disobedience. > > > [@](#): > > > > And yes, it is not hard to objectively figure out what the framers intended by the Constitution. > > And yet you think it is impossible for either a majority in Congress, the President, or at least five members of the Supreme Court to figure out. Okay, all wars since WWII have been unconstitutional. I know this because the constitution says, “Only Congress can declare war”. Is there something I am missing here? Congress hasn’t declared war since WWII. On that and numerous other issues our government breaks the Constitution and the Supreme Court allows it to occur. This means THEY are failing in their job. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/538 "2010-08-30T01:30:36Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > > So why have none of those grievous tyrannies been overturned by the Supreme Court? It’s not like all of these things happened in a vacuum. You have so little faith in the Constitution, you cannot accept that the system could possibly right a wrong within the process provided by the Constitution, so the only recourse is nullification and civil disobedience.And yet you think it is impossible for either a majority in Congress, the President, or at least five members of the Supreme Court to figure out. > > On that and numerous other issues our government breaks the Constitution and the Supreme Court allows it to occur. This means THEY are failing in their job. Then the Founders failed in their job, because they created the Constitution that permits failure. Why do you hate the Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/539 "2010-08-30T01:32:19Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > > The government has never had mandatory vaccinations. You are free to be home schooled if vaccinations are considered tyrannical in your religion. > > Free to be home schooled? Do you think that is a rational choice for most people? The choice of education and vaccinations or no education and no vaccinations is no choice at all. So you think you are entitled to an education funded by taxes stolen from your neighbor? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/540 "2010-08-30T01:42:01Z")
I want to make the point now that I have answered every single reply to my thread. I’m sure there will be more, but I figure I have gotten my positions out there. It is up to you all to reflect on what I have written and go through the links and learn your history. I have a few suggestions by way of summary. The critical areas of study if one desires to become politically astute is as follows: **1. The Federal Reserve and the banking system.** Study the ways the bankers hijacked our economy. Learn how the banking system really works. It is a fascinating study. Books I recommend: _The Creature from Jekyl Island_ by G Edward Griffin _Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country_, by William Greider **2. Study the great works of Austrian economists and libertarian thinkers** Books I recommend: _Individualism and Economic Order_ by F. A. Hayek _Human Action: A Treatise on Economics_ by Ludwig von Mises _The Road to Serfdom: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition_ by F. A. Hayek _A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism_ by Hans-Hermann Hoppe _The Ethics of Liberty_ by Murray N. Rothbard _The Law_ by Frederic Bastiat **3. Other books of merit that you should all read** _End the Fed_ by Ron Paul _Lies the Government Told You_ by Andrew Napolitano _What Has Government Done to Our Money?_ by Murray N Rothbard Now if you actually spend the time with this material and let it sink in and become more aware of current events of the next few years, I believe you will be sold on the core truths these works contain. I have noticed many of you are still stubbornly clinging to the statist propaganda that has been drilled into your head. I promise that you will see the world differently once you understand the true economic effects of government policy. You may even wise up a little and reject big government and authoritarianism outright. Whatever the case, I hope I was able to shine some light in the darkness to light the way to truth and liberty. I am going to take a break. Feel free to respond in summary of this exercise. I will be back later. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=28)