We have tried that. Try getting anyone in Washington to read the Constitution, let alone bothering to amend it. If we have an out of control, and I would even say tyrannical government, the ability to change the system through normal means disappears.
After that, Nullification and civil disobedience become reasonable options to bring about change.
I’m actually not going to directly respond to the lunacy that you have typed here.
Rather I want to ask you a straightforward and direct question:
At what point would you consider the actions of the government to be tyrannical and the size of government to be too large, too burdensome?
Because you seem to think that government can do no wrong.
This is an ignorant comment. Of course there is a difference between peacefully protesting government and violating someones property rights.
Yes it is, among other things.
Why should I respond to you if you refuse to respond to me? This is a forum for discussion, not some private soapbox site of yours.
Lets seriously stick to the important issues, okay? I am not a Tea Party member. I am not here to defend the Tea Party. I am speaking for myself and people I know who are very angry at the current administration and the government. I am far from what you see on TV and none of the people I know are middle age white people.
How do you want me to prove that the protest I attended was diverse? I live in California, for one thing. The rally I attended was an independent libertarian rally, no GOP involvement. I don’t have pictures to email you.
Its up to you whether you believe me or not. But lets focus on the substance of the protests rather than this bullshit.
And if you post anything like it, again, I am going to shut down your (not so) little polemic.
And, again, do not make personal attacks on other posters.
[ /Moderating ]
[quote=“PBear42, post:254, topic:550784”]
Okay, I’ve read the OP’s manifesto. Skimmed yesterday. Read it in full today, twice, once this morning and again this evening. A few thoughts.
First, if you want to engage people in discussion, you should leave out the ad hominems, the condescension and the question begging (e.g., not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid). I counted half a dozen of these in the first paragraph and would estimate about a hundred across the whole piece. With several dozen more in the posts since. This is no way to influence people.
[QUOTE]
I appreciate you for actually reading the post and responding in an intelligent way. Thats more than I can say for most of the posters here. The criticisms of the tone are fair.
As far as credentials, no I don’t have a formal economics degree. I took a few economics classes in college and I have read a ton on my own. In fact if you understand the Austrian school of economics you would know that you would probably know more about real economics by NOT taking any college classes given the Keynesian bullshit they are force feeding students these days.
The fact that you think this OP would merit a B in a political economics class, given that its simply a post I did in my spare time I think qualifies as “pretty good”. Have you seen any other undergraduate “B” papers on The Straight Dope message boards? If I was actually taking a political economics class in college I would certainly put forth a whole lot more effort and give it much more polish.
But I did this for free for your benefit.
Sure, cutting taxes without cutting spending is outrageous. I’ve said so many times. You know, the job of the intellectual is not to be practical or political. The job is to argue passionately and persuasively for the way things “should” be, not the way they are. I am not a politician. My goal is to advocate a philosophy I believe in and educate people until they understand and then demand the correct course of action from their government.
Yes, but the medium of exchange is very important. Capital accumulation is savings. With a fiat currency savings is discouraged and debt is encouraged. The value of the currency is vitally important in relation to how much one can buy with it. For our entire history, until 1971 the dollar was linked to gold. Simply observing the skyrocketing debt, spending and inflation that has occurred since then should make it clear how important the value of the dollar is.
Sure, there is much more to go into. Our loss of manufacturing base is truly the most important, even more important than the devaluation of the dollar. I can only cover so much in limited space here. Give me a break.
You can disagree. I respect those who give a fair effort in understanding what I wrote and responding in an intelligent way. You have clearly done that.
I’ve already responded to this. Look it up a few replies back.
Right, like I just said.
Income inequality is increasing partly due to inflation and our monetary system and partly due to cronyism, corporatism, and government favoritism. There are many aspects of America’s decline that I haven’t touched. I also can’t adequately convey the knowledge I have gained in learned about Austrian economics, history and libertarian philosophy.
There are many problems associated with a depreciating which you are not acknowledging. It would require some serious study on your part to grasp the seriousness of the effects. Most people don’t give it much thought, which is a serious mistake.
First of all, nobody would be forced to work for two dollars an hour or starve. That is a false choice that wouldn’t exist in a free economy. Workers would be paid what they are worth. If a competitor is paying its employees eight dollars an hour, how would this company get away with salaries of two dollars an hour? Plus, people would be unwilling to work for less than a fair amount so business would adjust to pay people what they are worth. Minimum wage laws would be unnecessary. There are certain jobs that are worth less than minimum wage today, but they don’t exist because of minimum wage laws. So, raising the minimum wage destroys jobs and people get laid off. These kind of policies end up hurting people. This is my point.
There is a difference between caring about the poor and the true effects of the policies you advocate, which is very much opposite of your intended result.
Haven’t I made it clear that the Republicans are to blame as well? They are more to blame in fact. But the early 20th century Progressivism planted the seeds for this crisis to happen. The unfunded liabilities, the monetary system and much more were created before Reagan. The Republicans just accelerated its journey to its inevitable conclusion.
I think I have made it pretty clear I am not interested in playing partisan games here. I am criticizing liberals because Obama is president and I oppose his policies now. This is not a partisan issue for me.
Yes, but this corporatism is a collusion between government and big business and a total rejection of free markets and the rule of law. The wealthy “getting in charge” as you put it is when business and the banks control the government and control the regulatory system and they screw over everyone else. This is fascism. It is a result of the dollar being delinked from gold in 1971. This created a massive bubble and the rich went along for the ride.
What I am saying is we need to re-embrace free enterprise and reject cronyism, corporatism and government intervention in the marketplace. We shouldn’t protect the criminals through bailouts. The answer is not socialism and redistribution of wealth. The answer is undoing the merger between business and government, thereby creating a “free” market once again. Cut regulations. Cut subsidies. No bailouts, no golden parachutes. Prosecute fraud and criminal behavior.
You seem to be getting the picture, but you shouldn’t EVER blame the crisis on capitalism and free markets. That wasn’t the problem.
If you are unaware that substantial amounts of the bailout money has already been paid back, I would suggest you abandon the publications who seem to find it inconvenient to publish this information. Now, it is true that much was paid in order to allow for big bonuses for execs, but it was paid, with interest. Will it be 100% paid back? Of course not - it was not meant to make a profit, but rather to prevent a further collapse, which it did.
I think at this point the Fed would love a little inflation, since the inflation rate is not even at its target value.
So, how much unemployment would be acceptable to you in order to maintain your ideological purity? 20%? 30%? How many years would this take? 3 years after the start of the Depression there was no recovery.
Hellestal in the other thread has nicely refuted the notion that the Austrians ever explained the Depression, and the followers of Keynes brought stability for a long period of time - far longer than existed in the 19th century. I agree that the middle class is in danger - but only because of conservative economic policies that favored the rich.
But I realized something fascinating in your support of gold buggery. If I said that it was important to have stable prices and wages, and thus supported controls on these, I’d think a charge of socialism would be far more accurate than those being thrown around today. I of course don’t believe in this. However, you seem to believe in strong government control of the currency, and seem to oppose letting the free market set the values of currencies. Socialism? Let’s remember that the biggest nation that does not let its currency float is Communist China.
I did respond. I had to attend to some issues for several days so I could not spend all my time responding to each and every post. I am back on now and will answer each and every post in great detail. Look and you will find what I wrote. You might even learn something in the process.
First, I haven’t been hiding. I haven’t been paying attention to this thread. I just skimmed through numerous posts where your facts were refuted. Facts are not numbers. Facts are the provable statements requiring quantification and qualification. When you cite a number as a fact, such as the price of gold in some year, and attach it to your opinions or philosophies, it is no longer a fact.
Let me demonstrate:
Fact: 1+1=2
Not Fact: 1+1=2 so we should return to the Gold Standard
I’m not going to bother addressing the rest of your non-facts. The time I’ve spent reading your OP and your responses has been wasted already. It’s easier to refute your logic. I’ll return in a few days to do that.
I already have. I am trying to respond to EVERY SINGLE REPLY on this thread and I have some of you criticizing me because I haven’t gotten to their special comment in time? I do actually have a life outside of endlessly posting on message boards.
Fucking hell. For the last time, whatever certain Republicans may have claimed, their policies were not libertarian in any way, shape or form. Thats just the way it is. I can’t say this any more plainly.
Also, since I’m not Czarcasm, could you please provide a fact to back up your claim of a Tea Party protest that was at least 15% African American.
Okay, but this current crisis was a major event. Rather than talk about how or why certain people predicted it correctly, we should be talking about how mainstream economists failed to predict the crisis. That is the real shocker.
The Austrians know how bubbles are formed and that they are doomed to collapse. They are extremely prescient. You cannot claim that it is a matter of a broken clock is right twice a day. Over and over again they have predicted accurate economic events which have unfolded.