Not when you say things like, I dunno, this?
That’s from your magnum opus that started this whole thing. Part 3 to be exact.
At the risk of dragging myself headlong into this trainwreck of a thread, I refer the poster to the previous trainwreck of a thread initiated by himself, in which Mr. Paul’s racist pedigrees were examined in detail.
And as long as you continue to use the notion of rising prices to define inflation, the true harm attributable to inflation will be hidden.
I am not making a big deal of the fact that people term inflation as rising prices, but the point I am making is that we should limit inflation by reducing the growth in the monetary base. The focus should be on monetary policy, not rising prices.
Oh, the CIA isn’t doing the dumping. Sorry if I was unclear. According to the esteemed Mr. Paul the CIA is stealing it. The Federal Reserve is the one secretly dumping it on the market through shell companies because, um, just because, okay?
The CIA and the Reserve are basically in a race to see who can loot the place first. Ron Paul even claims that it might already be all gone. We clearly should have stored it somewhere safer.
What is wrong with the concept of Nullification? You are right that it was practiced sparingly and effectively ended in conversation after the Civil War, but the Founders saw it as a much more moderate step short of secession. It was another way to restrain the power of the Federal Government and protect the liberties of the inhabitants.
So tell me, in your own words what is wrong with ressurrecting the concept of Nullification?
What about California effectively nullifying Federal laws against Marijuana? Surely you support that?
What is your view on the concept of Nullification?
I never said that. But there were certain consensus issues that emerged in their writings that can be verified with only a slight bit of effort.
No, there aren’t, since we have little or no writings to reflect the beliefs of the majority of the founders… and regardless of whether you “said” it, you phrased your statement that way.
No, we should change the Constitution to keep up with the times. But we shouldn’t ignore it.
Is that so hard to understand?
Yes, I agree with this. The founders had many faults but the nation they founded and the documents they provided are superior to any nation in the history of the world. THIS is why we respect the opinions of the founders. Respect for human liberty has been rare throughout history. An expressly limited government and properly delegated powers and respect for private property and contracts was rare as well. Everything that we have accomplished and come to be in the world is due to the framework laid out by the founders.
Some of them owned slaves and had personal faults. They were certainly products of their era. But these did not diminish their accomplishments.
Yes it is. My only point was not to put to much faith in “scientific” consensus because of the biases that exist and the protection of the market for certain types of medical procedures.
In a true free market most people would pay out of pocket for most medical expenses and insurance would be for major medical procedures.
No, you misunderstood me. The doctors who perform the procedure keep data on who gets better and who doesn’t. And there have been many tests done to prove to effectiveness of the procedure. However, if insurance companies and Medicare don’t want to cover it, they claim their doctors haven’t verified it, so it has no merit.
I am objecting to this. If you work in a clinic and see people getting better all the time, you wouldn’t need a study to confirm what you are seeing in front of your eyes.
I don’t think my concerns are unfounded. Sometimes there is only one company manufacturing the vaccine to treat a number of people. I don’t think it would be as hard as you think to pull off. People don’t pay attention anyway.
Thalidomide worked pretty well, too.
This is why people have so much trouble with your “debating” style. I never made the claim that the founders were closer to either libertarianism or modern liberalism, so how can I be disputing that idea? Instead of actually responding to the statements I actually made, you ignore them, and then decide to respond to something you’ve created in your head.
What I stated (and this is now the 3rd time I’m stating it) is that there are a number of philosophical constructs which claim as their basis the idea of “personal liberty.” Simply saying that someone believes in personal liberty does not mean that they are a libertarian (and your proof for their libertarianism is a bunch of dodgy quotes apparently, so now you don’t even have the proof of your idea to argue with).
And I have also pointed out to you that they did a number of things which completely contradict libertarianism. Slavery is such a violation of the fundamental principles of libertarianism that owning slaves or tolerating slavery is enough to disqualify someone. However, they just didn’t do that. They purchased land or seized it and then gave it away for free or at reduced-market rates. This is wealth redistribution, plain and simple. They used government money to finance canals and roads which were turned over to the private sector. This is centralized industrial policy. They restricted economic or political activity based on gender or race or other arbitrary construct. This again, violates basic libertarian principles. Remember, the government would actually prevent private individuals from forming voluntary economic relationships with each other because of race/gender/ etc. (primarily on the state level, but since the Feds owned so much land, it happened on the Federal level as well). And since tomndebb brought up the Whiskey Rebellion, I should also point out that this whiskey tax was levied in part as a sin tax to get the backing of the temperance movement. That sort of moral economic manipulation by the government is completely antithetical to libertarianism.
Your argument is like saying you can be a vegan and still eat meat. Or you can be a feminist and practice female genital mutilation on infants. If you can practice slavery, industrial policy, economic restriction, wealth redistribution and industrial policy and still be a libertarian, then anyone can be a libertarian. I guess everyone who has ever lived is a libertarian under this definition.
They were, in a nutshell, aristocratic mercantilists and crony capitalists, with many of them believing that government should be used to achieve a “greater good” (however they defined it). They certainly did not take the approach that an unregulated market was a greater good in and of itself (which is an approach that many modern libertarians take). They were quite happy to use the government as a means to an end (although they may have disagreed about the wisdom or morality of certain ends).
Yes but ITRChampion was picking things out from threads I created a long time ago. Most of the websites I linked to are free of any and all controversial material.
Nope, the only thing anyone ever says is in reference to a newsletter Ron Paul lent his name to in the early 90s. Some other people wrote the articles. Nobody has ever heard Ron Paul say anything remotely close to the quotes in the newsletter. Nobody believes that those reflect his views.
So, unless you have something else, you fail.
You have this tone that implies believing such a thing is ludicrous. In fact to an educated mind, it is highly believable. You think all the gold is in Fort Knox? Shouldn’t we know? Shouldn’t we reign in the power of the CIA? What are they doing of benefit to us?
Please explain the concept of double-blinding, and why is is important in collecting unbiased data. Extra credit if you can do so without linking to mises.org
So far you’re showing no understanding of that market.
Give me an example. For instance the CDC says six companies make the seasonal flu vaccine.
People would pay attention if someone reported that the government was putting poisons in vaccines. They certainly paid attention to a lot of garbage about thimerosal and autism! Like I said, you’re positing a big conspiracy and one that doesn’t make any sense. It’s not in a drug company’s interests to keep the population down. The strict definition of conspiracy (a group of people working together toward a goal) does not apply here; we’re talking about an enormous government conspiracy.
This reminds me of the 9/11 nutter who think it would be ‘easy’ to wire the twin towers for explosive demolition without anyone noticing.
A few posts ago jrod was complaining about vaccines were a big profit source and that pharmaceutical companies were adding more and more. When it was pointed out the number of vaccines has been dropping dramatically and only a few companies make them anymore he comes up with the switcheroo conspiracy you see above. Anything to keep hating that damn evil vaccines that only saved millions of lives.
Do you have any idea how drugs are manufactured and tested? (rhetorical question, BTW, we know from your other comments that the answer is ‘not in the slightest’). In production you can’t just add another pipet to the holder labeled “SEKRIT X” and tell the workers to use it. You can’t tell the people in QA to just ignore that cyanide, and you can’t hope the outside independent lab that does the batch inspection won’t notice you have added ‘Nad-shrinker permanent baby preventer #9’.
Even if you ignore all the issues that makes jrod’s claims such a bad joke, the idea of putting poison into vaccines to do something to people’s health seems to come under that Trope of ‘needlessly complicated’.
Somewhere I see an agent of the Sinister Intelligence Agency stroking a white cat and saying “Thanks to the clever additions to the vaccine these people will have…possible theoretical long term health complications!!! Mwahahahahaha!!!”