Heh. The “Pay Attention” in the thread title itself screams arrogance.
If he lets us know when and where this supposedly integrated rally took place, maybe we can do some checking.
If you are truly interested in anyone taking up your challenge to debate, take the advice of one of my speech professors.
“If you want clear concise answers, ask clear concise questions”
Really, what’s a better way to get a response?
-
Tell me what you think about A?
-
Tell me what you think about A, B, C, D, E, F…Z? And also tell me what you think about the Arabic alphabet, and just to make it challenging, here are some Chinese characters to analyze as well.
By typing (or more likely cutting and pasting) your manifesto, you make it unlikely that anyone will want to even try to respond to the entire thing, thus you can sit back and smile smugly just because no one else is willing to dedicate the time to decipher your pile of words.
I can only surmise that you really don’t want a real discussion, since you haven’t initiated the conversation in a way that could actually lead to a conversation.
Is it arrogance to assume that just because you think the OP is completely wrong that it’s only because you’re so blinded by your own ignorance that you don’t see the fundamental truth of his positions?
It’s kind of funny, because we’ve got another libertarian here who responds to everything with his very own wall of text in an attempt to argue his points. Must be part of their handbook or something.
Argumentum ad nauseum.
-Joe
This. I’m not participating in a “debate” of this sort.
Early on, in your incoherent shambles of an OP, you identified yourself as an intellectual. In my experience anyone who identifies himself as an intellectual, isn’t one. By self identifying in that way, you probably lost any credibility you might have had.
Explain what mechanisms you and Ron Paul would change to acheve these ends, and how these mechanisms would contribute to these goals.
Start with explaining to me how taking away my checking account and debit card and instead dumping a pile of metal coins in my lap will increase my economic freedom.
If he is he’s taking forever. Of course, the posts of mine that he’s ignoring are completely irrefutable to him, on account of the fact that they’re based on good old-fashioned solid reason, not religious faith like his.
You put it in writing. Let’s see whether you keep your word. I will list some real criticisms. Most of these real criticisms, as you know, I’ve challenged you with before. On those occasions you didn’t answer them. Now you have a second chance.
**Real Criticism of jrodefeld’s argument #1:**You say that
I agree with that statement. We don’t have the same type of prosperity that we used to have. We have much more prosperity than we used to have. Even after the recent economic troubles, we are still vastly wealthier than we were in the era of the gold standard. It really doesn’t matter what measure we use: GDP, personal income, home ownership, education level, etc… It all doesn’t matter whether we adjust for inflation or not. The fact remains the same. The idea that we have less prosperity than we used to is absurd, when any decent source will confirm that we have more.
**Real Criticism of jrodefeld’s argument #2:**You say
The early stages of hyperinflation are not here, nor even the early stages of ordinary inflation. The current rate of inflation is roughly three tenths of a percent. Do you hear me? I said THREE TENTHS OF A PERCENT. That means that inflation is not occurring. To warn about hyperinflation is absurd. We’re currently at high risk for almost any economic problem except inflation. The biggest fear right now among sensible people is deflation, which is the opposite of inflation. Home prices have gone down about 30% in the past three years, not up. To say that hyperinflation is occurring is like telling Pakistanis that their river levels are too low.
Ah, but now I hear you saying that hyperinflation will occur in the future. Will it really? When I walk past a bank, I see 5-year and 10-year CDs and bonds going for interest rates around 2-3%, even lower than the rates from a few months ago. If high inflation was actually around the corner, why is the marker not predicting it?
Real Criticism of jrodefeld’s argument #3: You say
Gold is uniquely bad at holding its value over long periods of time. For example, in 1981 gold prices rose over $800 per ounce. By 1998 they were down to almost $200 per ounce. Gold does not hold it’s value over time.
Real Criticism of jrodefeld’s argument #4: You say
This is completely untrue. Are you familiar with Standard Oil? How about the Northern Securities Company? How about the Beef Trust, the Sugar Trust, and the monopolies that controlled over a hundred American industries in the early 20th century? Clearly monopolies occur extremely often in free market economies. They are rare only in well-regulated economies.
Real Criticism of jrodefeld’s argument #5You say
You haven’t shown any such thing. Every significant agency and economic reform enacted by FDR or LBJ is still here. Every one. Not one exception. Your statement is merely inane.
I’ve got plenty of other real criticisms, but I’ll terminate the list there for the moment. Frankly I doubt that you’re going to answer any of those.
Okay. I rarely read the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, Fox News, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or the Wall Street Journal, and when I read them I tend not to believe what they say. All of those sources have a strong bias in favor of libertarianism and against progressive thought. I get my news from sources such as Daily Kos, Salon, NPR, the Daily Show, and Bartcop, since I find them to be generally trustworthy.
Look, it is a fair point to state that my OP is too long for a normal debate on these forums and you don’t want to spend the time a absorb the argument and points I made. But you definitely shouldn’t call what I write “crank-wingnuttery”. You should call it a fully formed, consistent, political philosophy that merits consideration in our political culture in this country. Even if you disagree.
So, instead of a “debate” why don’t you read the OP thoroughly and look through the links and learn something new. I highly doubt most people on this forum have learned about the origins of the Federal Reserve system, fractional reserve banking, and the monetary system. Very few people have. I doubt many that promote social welfare understand the method that is funding these programs is impoverishing people faster than it is helping people.
I am not looking to change everyones mind. I am looking to open some eyes and expose some of you to some new ideas. So, in a sense, I am not looking for a traditional debate.
The point of my efforts here is to say: This is my critique of modern Progressivism and proponents of big government and the welfare state. Broadly, what are your impressions of what I wrote?
That is the purpose of this exercise.
Broadly, my impression is that if you can’t answer the specific arguments already made against Libertarianism and gold-hoarding, that proves that your thesis is fundamentally flawed. Which in turn proves in advance that a thesis based on these flawed theories is garbage.
Thus, my impression of what you wrote is that it’s garbage, and will remain so until you separately defend the gold standard, and also until you refute my earlier post which proves that those who wish to dismiss Social Security and Welfare are immoral scumbags. That’s just my impression, mind you.
Wow, you may have “skimmed” the OP, but you certainly didn’t absorb the wisdom it contained. I care deeply about the unemployed and the growing income gap. The policies you support have created these conditions. Think about this:
The reason we have a growing income gap is due to the monetary system that enriches the business class through subsidies and bailouts and robs the poor and middle class of their savings and purchasing power of their money.
In countries that follow on the course of central banking and fiat money, the middle class is destroyed. There are only the very rich and the very poor. This is the hallmark of many third world nations. If we had Sound Money and a commodity backing to our money, we would have more equal distribution of money. Not from a socialistic redistribution, but through the natural regulation of the Marketplace, which limits the cronyism and government intervention.
Who every said I supported tax cuts for the rich? I don’t think I said anything of the sort. I certainly don’t think Bush’s Tax Cuts will create jobs. Neither will government stimulus and bailouts for the rich. We need to reduce regulations, cut subsidies, restore confidence in the dollar and allow small business and entrepreneurs to lead us out of this mess.
This is what I suggest. Visit the website below and read up on economics from the archive of great literature. I personally have spent hours reading these books and reflecting on economic theories pioneered by the greatest economic minds of the 20th century.
Maybe I will do that. I do want to see how many actually respond to my full length OP. Even if people don’t respond, I hope people do read what I wrote for their own benefit.
My impression is that you have an axe to grind because you have a philosophical objection to modern banking systems, social spending, and moderate rates of taxation. I do not believe you present anything new or convincing in terms of trying to make out like these systems don’t work.
It’s like if someone doesn’t like some food, they sometimes make up all kinds of nonsense about it to justify their not preferring that food. (White sugar gives you cancer, fish has mercury in it and will kill you, etc.) It’s fine if they don’t like the food, but just don’t make up scare stories just because other people have different tastes.
You keep saying this over and over, but it’s just not true. As has been pointed out to you many times, every country has centralized banking, aside from ****holes such as Somalia. So plainly those countries that have a large, prosperous middle class all have centralized banking. Look at Japan. Look at Israel. Look at almost every country in Europe. Look at the countries in the developing world where the middle class has been growing by leaps and bounds in recent years.
Or just ask yourself this: when was the American middle class larger, now or in the age of the gold standard?
Well, I’ve responded to it with five specific criticisms in post 168. I await your promised address of those criticisms.
I think you will have a long wait.
Depends on how you mean that. It looks to me as if the OP is responding to every legitimate (and some not so legitimate) posts…he’s just several pages behind at this point.
Personally, I’m interested to see his response, as I think ITR made some excellent points there, and I can’t see how the OP will be able to defend his positions against them. The only thing I can see is that there is some debate on the monopoly issue…other than that, it looks like a slam dunk for ITR.
-XT
Who said I was a Republican? Where did you get that impression? I clearly stated that I am an Independent, Antiwar Libertarian. I narrowed my criticisms on this specific post to the liberals, supporters of Obama, and defenders of the welfare state because they are in power at the moment. Believe me, I could just as easily write a lengthy criticism of Bush, the Republicans, and Fox News that would be just as long. But that is for another day.
You seem to narrow everything down to Left vs Right. Anything that does not agree with your views is considered “Right wing” nonsense.
The reason I believe in what I believe is because I care deeply about the poor and disenfranchised. I endlessly criticize Wall Street and Corporate america and how they are screwing over the middle class. Issues I care about are probably not too different from what you care about.
The difference is that I understand enough economics and US history to know that, well intended though it may be, the policies you and other liberals advocate are created more poor people, more income inequality, and more unsustainable debt. The true antidote to the soul crushing effects of authoritarianism, keynesianism and corporatism is freedom, meaning both social freedom and a free economic system.
Before we Nixon closed the gold window and created a completely fiat monetary system, the average CEO made thirty times the salary of the lowest paid employee. Now, forty years later, the average CEO makes three hundred times the lowest employee. Now, this is a dramatic increase in income inequality! How did this happen?
The answer is inflation and back room deals with the Federal Reserve which causes wealth to gravitate upwards. During this same time, we have experienced an increase in the size of government, increased regulation and more social welfare.
My point is this system is failing. Big government keynesianism and welfarism has created more poor, more income inequality, and more debt. Yet, we are told that those of us who support phasing out the bankrupt entitlements (or privatizing them) and shrinking government in an effort to balance the budget don’t care about the poor. This is nonsense.
Remember when Lyndon Johnson created a War on Poverty? In his Utopian delusions he really thought through government intervention and central planning he could wipe out poverty. Instead we have more income inequality and poverty that ever before, despite record levels of spending on social welfare programs.
The only system that ever was able to virtually wipe out hunger and poverty is Free Market Capitalism. TRUE free markets with sound money and limited government.
Why don’t you respond to the above, perhaps read some Austrian literature, study economics and tell me what part of what I wrote is “nonsense”? I will await your response.
He could respond this way:
"Phfft! Facts. You can use them to prove anything.
– Homer Simpson
That is the primary substance of his responses so far. When his facts are refuted, they become philosophy. When the inconsistencies are revealed, we are unable to grasp his wisdom.
-
What is “poverty”?
-
How does “income disparity” relate to “poverty”?
-
Are there objective standards for “poverty” that do not relate to “income disparity”?
Yet oddly enough, when the United Kingdom moved away from a corporatist, social democratic system towards a more free market system, income inequality rose; poverty rose; hunger rose.
Now you can argue it wasn’t “true” free markets, and you are probably right. But it was a move towards freer markets, I don’t think anyone will disagree. And given that it led to increases in the things you claim to want to see reduced, I would say its incumbent on you to say why going the whole way would elimanate them, when going part of the way has the opposite effect and increases them.