If you’re looking forward to hearing my answer that much, you could have read the answer that I gave in your previous threads whenever you asked a very similar question. I’ve given an answer many times and it’s always the same answer. Other men might wonder why I should even bother giving an answer again when you obviously ignored the first few, but I’ll keep posting the same thing over and over in hopes that it eventually permeates your mind.
If you search for threads started by me in this forum you’ll see that I have a long record of fighting for smaller government in a variety of contexts. Hence you’ve no excuse for implying that I’m not willing to lessen government power. What I’m not willing to do is agree with you or make an alliance with you or admit to agreeing with you on any issue.
Now why should this be? Simply because in your short time on this board you’ve promoted–either through words or through links–the belief that black people are inferior; that violence against Mexicans is good; that Jews are involved in all kinds of conspiracies; that the Holocaust was a hoax; that Hitler and the Nazis were good people; that the NAFTA Superhighway, the Amero, and the North American Union are all read; that vaccinations are bad for people; that homeopathy, herbal cures, and other quack therapies are good for people; that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance; that President Obama practices mind control; that the Jews are responsible for starting World War II; that the Freemasons are responsible for starting World War II; that the Democrats were responsible for starting World War II; that Satan Worshipers were responsible for starting World War II; that Ron Paul would make a good President; that David Duke would make a good President; that racists such as Thomas Woods, Lew Rockwell, and David Rense are the only reliable sources of information; that basic things such as the CPI and medical information are part of some far-reaching government conspiracy; that women and homosexuals are conspiring to neuter men by dumping chemicals in the drinking water; that global warming is a hoax; that global warming is not a hoax but that the government is using it to take away our freedoms; and a huge number of other things of that nature.
So given the enormous amount of energy that you’ve spent promoting racism, antisemitism, conspiracy theories, and all-around insanity, it’s not surprising that you’ve developed a terrible reputation on this board. If I ever agreed with you, then every cause that I stand for would be tarred by association with you. Consequently I must work to put as much distance between myself and you as possible and thus ensure that my causes do not suffer by association.
Benjamin Franklin once said: “He who lies down with dogs comes up with fleas.” (Unlike the founding father quotes that you posted, this one is real–see the Poor Richard’s Almanac.) That’s the basic policy I’m following in this thread. So you were looking forward to hearing my answer, and now you’ve heard it. (Read it actually, but small difference.)
Unless you’ve been hired by the Obama Administration to hang out on message boards and drive people away from libertarianism, in which case good job and keep up the good work.
To say that “bond markets are very poor predictors of inflation” is like saying that cattle future markets are very poor predictors of cattle prices. Bond markets are predictors of inflation. If investors buy a ten-year bond at 3%, that reflects what they predict about interest rates in the next ten years. They may be wrong, but for someone like you who crows about how great markets are at establishing “correct” prices it would certainly be embarrassing if they were wildly wrong all the time.
Second, your claim that “the interest rate is set by central planners” is flatly false. In fact, if you knew anything about economics, you wouldn’t use the phrase “the interest rate” because you would know that there are enormous number of interest rates, of which the Federal Reserve sets only one, namely the rate on overnight loans between banks. When a treasury auction is held, investors decide whether to buy bonds at the interest rate that’s being offered or not. If they don’t like the rate, they won’t buy the bonds and the auction will fail. Hence it’s ridiculous to claim that the government “sets” the rate. Your claim looks even worse when we switch to corporate bonds, where the government has no control; it’s set entirely by the markets.
You keep saying this over and over again while refusing to provide any evidence that it’s true. The defining characteristics of the events in the the Fall of 2008 were: that major banks had deceitfully bundled suprime mortgages into complex securites and lied about the risks, that federal regulators and bond raters allowed them to get away with it, and that insurance companies participated in this criminal enterprise in a big way. Can you give me any evidence that any Austrian economist predicted these things?
Of course you didn’t. Oh, except for that time when you did:
Now, I understand you see this as “nitpicking”, or probably have judged me to be narrow sighted, or not aware of the totality of Ron Paul’s visionary nature. Unfortunately for you, I don’t care about how right Ron Paul has ever been about anything. It’s irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make.
What I do care about is your propensity to play fast and loose with the facts, tossing around assertions without any regard to whether or not you’ve come within fifty miles of the truth. The reason I picked out just a couple things to focus on is that they’re very easily falsifiable. Thus, doubts are raised - if you’re not willing to fact-check statements you make (like the second quote, above), what else haven’t you fact-checked?
Your credibility is shot when you say things that are so easily proven wrong. Your bias shows when you look at a list of obviously incorrect predictions, and say, “they all seem sure to happen” simply because the author is Ron Paul.
Do us all a favor and actually verify the things you say in the future. Between this and all your fabricated quotes from the founding fathers, the obvious conclusion for me to come to is that your theses are poorly researched, your facts unverified, and your opinions carbon-copies of highly biased sources.
For someone as self-righteous as you are about the tremendous amount of reading and research you’ve done, it is ridiculous that you repeatedly fail to do any research whatsoever before making claims.
Unfortunately for you, the Austrians have ignored the fact that language evolves, and inflation is now synonymous with price inflation. You want it to be synonymous with monetary inflation, and though that may have been true at one point, it is not used nor defined in that fashion any longer. Cite (PDF warning).
You can continue to deny the actual definition of the word “inflation”, as it is used by speakers of English and defined in the dictionary, and you’ll continue to be wrong. If you want to speak of monetary inflation and why we should worry about it, feel free. Just don’t try to deny reality on this any longer.
Not to mention that this was firmly overturned in the one court even above SCOTUS, in the case United States v. South Carolina, Virginia, et al., 1861-65 (GRANT appearing for plaintiff, LEE for respondent, 1 Catton 1 ff.)
Am I the only person who doesn’t give much of a shit what the Founders wanted? Perhaps it’s just because i’m British, but nationality aside, I don’t see why the intent of those particular people hundreds of years ago is vital, or even necessary, for deciding what law is now. The knowledge has historical interest, sure, but an idea should not be given a pass because it is declared that the founders were for it, or more scrutiny because they were against it. An idea stands on its own merits, not because it happened to spring from the brain of a particular person.
Much of the Constitution doesn’t have any inherent merit or logic. For example, the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination; it’s there to ensure that torturing people to wring confessions from them is pointless.
Well, people simply don’t get tortured anymore, and when they do, we come up with a useful legal fiction (or several) to deny them civil rights anyway.
However, the Constitution itself has come to hold intrinsic value; things are rights because they’re in the Constitution (or aren’t because they’re not). That means the views of the Founders are relevant to some people, since the Constitution and its amendments are vague.
I’m not one of them, and I think looking for the original intent of people who’ve been dead 250 years is a fool’s errand, but there you go.
No, you’re not. Also, it is unusual for black folk to use the phrase “our founding fathers”, I guess because they question the wisdom and ethics of people who kept other human beings as work animals. I guess this does not bother conservatives.
There were numerous Founding Fathers who were anti-slavery (including some who had owned slaves). Ben Franklin was one; others included James Madison, John Jay and Thomas Jefferson.
There are reasons for questioning whether the Founders
opinions should be sacrosanct today; dismissing them all on the grounds that they were pro-slavery is not a valid justification.
Actually it may make more sense for blacks than for anyone else. Given how frequently plantation owners procreated with their female slaves, it’s probable that more blacks than whites are descended from Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and other southern leaders of that time period.
What about the opinions of the ones who were slave holders, that conservatives still worship so much? And I agree, there is more than just slavery that their opinions deserve dismissing (They lived in an era before automatic weapons, the internet and the TELEPHONE for heaven’s sake), but I find it hard to put myself into a white person’s shoes and think “They’re ALL American’s founding fathers, no matter the color!” :rolleyes:
We live in a different world than the one they did, sure a lot of what they wrote was revolutionary and has good value, but they are not demi-gods and we should adjust as we go to best fit our needs at the time.
I don’t think from this statement that you’re likely to “get it”. Hopefully I am being whooshed because you seem pretty intelligent.
I want to add one more thing in response to this post. I think it is ridiculous to have such an overwhelming emphasis on arbitrary tests and double blind studies as the only criteria for the validity of a medical procedure or health product.
The true criteria is the results that patients receive. With Prolotherapy more than 90% of patients typically get mostly better or all the way better. This is FAR higher than any surgery or conventional medical treatment and without any risk whatsoever.
There are also biases and agendas even among scientists. This manifests when Insurance companies demand “proof” of success before they will cover a procedure. Frequently there IS proof and abundant studies, however some non partial entity will rule that there is no “scientific” validity to the procedure, or it “requires more study”. To the people who work at these clinics and see dozens of people being cured from years of chronic pain, these positions are crazy and inhumane, denying people access to a treatment that can provide permanent relief from chronic pain.
But this persists. Also, it is worth noting that some procedures are less applicable to double blind studies than others. There are also some treatments that we don’t quite understand why they work scientifically. We only understand that they do. The science will come later. That doesn’t mean you deny a potentially curative treatment or protocol to a suffering patient, right?
Isn’t this the free market at work, though? This isn’t a scientific issue, necessarily, it’s a question of what the insurance companies want to pay for.
You demonstrate a shocking ignorance about how clinical studies work, and the scientific method in general. How can you dismiss controlled studies, then claim that 90% of patients get better with prolotherapy? Why? Just because the ones you happened to talk to say so? How can you draw an informed conclusion from totally random data? You might as well predict efficacy by looking at tea leaves.
You clearly think anecdotal evidence is superior to clinical evidence. If you demonstrate such lack of rigor in biology, why should we have any more confidence in your knowledge about economics? I don’t think your method is capable of discerning what economic theory will lead to the greatest prosperity for the largest number of people. Your devotion to libertarianism has more in common with the blind faith of a religion than a rational, informed economic theory based on empirical data.
We disagree here. I don’t want government involved in medical care in any way shape or form. You seem to agree that without government involvement people would be willing to get vaccinations if their doctors recommended it, and especially if there was an impending epidemic. There’s no need for force or coercion. I trust MY doctor much more than I trust the government.
And, the biggest reason to be skeptical of SOME vaccines is this:
I want to stress that I am not a conspiracy theorist. I only understand human nature and the desire of some men to dominate and take advantage of others. I don’t believe the government is altruistic. But, think about this hypothetically:
What if the wrong group of people were to become in charge or in positions of power in our government and wanted to inject the population with drugs that they knew would have deleterious effects on the people? Perhaps environmental radicals who wanted to reduce the population numbers add infertility drugs to a vaccine? Our CIA has performed experiments on people without their consent before. Drugs have been injected into certain segments of the population in the past which would knowingly cause harm to those people. Its not TOO far fetched of an idea. There is precedent for this.
Now I know a certain number of you will think I am simply a paranoid delusional person for thinking along these lines, but why is it crazy? I don’t trust the government and I maintain that forcing people to get a certain number of injections every single year creates a situation where people COULD be exposed to large quantities of substances that they know nothing about. Having this discussion or concern does not mean I dispute the concept of vaccination or its role in eliminating deadly disease from the earth. The point is opposing government involvement and the MANDATORY nature of certain inoculations.
Could someone tell me why it is not possible that a harmful substance could be added to the vaccines that are then injected in the arms of huge segments of the population for unknown motives? It would be quite easy to do.
I want these decisions to be directed by MY doctor. I don’t want the government giving orders to my doctor or limiting his ability to give me the best advice and treatments he thinks is right. I don’t need a CDC list of a number of vaccinations I NEED to get by such and such date.
Depending on MY specific history and risk factors, it will be determined by my doctor, acting on his own to determine which vaccinations I should get and what I should do to avoid infectious disease.
