Ron Paul & Lew Rockwell contradict Glenn Beck

[Dripping Rain]

Just watched Freedom watch. after watching Glenn Beck defending the CEOs of AIG, their contracts & how the government doesnt have the right to infringe their $165 million Bonuses. Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and Cody Willard all said that AIG CEOs dont have contract rights to get bonuses because this is not a voluntary contract. It is money that was forcefully taken from the American people by the government. Lew Rockwell went as far as sayingthat the AIG CEOs should get zero salaries and bonuses.
Thank you Dr Paul, prof Rockwell, & Cody Willard for saying the truth as it is. Im glad i didnt get brainwashed by Beck eventhough I nearly got brainwashed
cant wait for the youtube and thanks to mrchubbs in advance

edit: Dr Paul gave a speech today saying that its unconstitutional to tax the AIG execs a 90% tax. so heres what i think the good Doc meant. he probably meant the AIG execs shouldve never gotten the bonus, but since they got it its unconstitutional to tax them 90% for that money. thats the only way this makes sense now
just to make matters clear
or as shocker says instead of trampling on this contract theyre now trampling on the constitution instead

ps please go through all my posts. i replied to every point raised. i wont repeat myself thanks

[MsDoodahs]

Along that line, I would like to see *the one* make a gesture to the american people by giving up his salary.

AND, all members in both houses of Congress should do the same.

:D

[Jeremy]

I like Beck's logic, but I guess he forgot about the bailout money.

[Dripping Rain]

Along that line, I would like to see *the one* make a gesture to the american people by giving up his salary.

AND, all members in both houses of Congress should do the same.

:D

lmao i doubt this cheap b*tard would ever give up his salary. but he may buy every American a box of DVDs lolol

[LibertyEagle]

lmao i doubt this cheap b*tard would ever give up his salary. but he may buy every American a box of DVDs lolol

Much less give up all the parties he's having at our expense.

[Dripping Rain]

Much less give up all the parties he's having at our expense.

welfare is very tempting especially when its the CIC. living in free government housing, having free food, not having to worry about paying bills and having a lucrative welfare cheque every year. why stop there when you can have parties for "free"

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Judge Napolitano backed Beck up yesterday, what was he saying today in response to Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell?

[Dripping Rain]

Judge Napolitano backed Beck up yesterday, what was he saying today in response to Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell?

lol
he had a funny look on his face. he tried to defend his position but was overwhelmed with "logic". 3 vs 1 is a losing battle. the only reason i went with Beck's brainwashing was because he had the judge with him but now I know better. were waiting for mrchubbs to give us the tube youll find it somewhat funny

[Kevin_Kennedy]

lol
he had a funny look on his face. he tried to defend his position but was overwhelmed with "logic". 3 vs 1 is a losing battle. the only reason i went with Beck's brainwashing was because he had the judge with him but now I know better. were waiting for mrchubbs to give us the tube youll find it somewhat funny

Yeah I'm gonna to have to watch it.

[SLSteven]

Along that line, I would like to see *the one* make a gesture to the american people by giving up his salary.

AND, all members in both houses of Congress should do the same.

:D

Ron Paul deserves a bonus!

[Dripping Rain]

for a moment i thought i was imagining things lolol
whoever cleaned the house thank you

[haaaylee]

I like Beck's logic, but I guess he forgot about the bailout money.


i agree. i think it is a sign he is starting to think our way, but he did forget to factor in that it wasn't actually money they earned. it was money we earned...

[Conza88]

i agree. i think it is a sign he is starting to think our way, but he did forget to factor in that it wasn't actually money they earned. it was money we earned...

You are drinking it.


http://www.iguanabio.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/kool-aidman_t.png

[powerofreason]

Beck is as dumb as a fucking rock. He's not a libertarian, he's not a conservative, he's just a dumbass. He is NOT on our side, k people? He knows jack shit about libertarianism.

[tremendoustie]

Beck is as dumb as a fucking rock. He's not a libertarian, he's not a conservative, he's just a dumbass. He is NOT on our side, k people? He knows jack shit about libertarianism.

I think four of his six remaining brain cells are with us all the way, that is, all of them other than the DEA cell and and hawk cell :p. Sorry, that was mean ...

[literatim]

I have to agree with Napolitano.

[satchelmcqueen]

You are drinking it.


http://www.iguanabio.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/kool-aidman_t.png

kool aid man is a freakin cannibal or murderer. hes either sayin "drink one of my own kinds brains!...here it is drink it!" or hes sayin " i am holding a small dead kool aid person and am going to drink his brains...OH YEAH!!"


what a retard.

[Stary Hickory]

Well this is my take...I would gladly write off all the bailouts as giveaways if we would STOP interfering and never do it again. I mean all that is going to happen if people keep going this route is the nationalization of more companies.

And then other companies will have to compete with government controlled companies who are subsisting off taxpayer dollars. Better to forget about them and just stop the bailouts. The money is all gone anyways. The greed in DC is out of control.

[axiomata]

Ron Paul is wrong on this one. And I think this is the only time that I've ever really said that.

Let me explain.

1. There is the contract between the people and their government. (taxes)
2. There is the contract between the government and AIG. (post bailout)
3. There is the contract between AIG and its executives. (bonuses)

The privity rule of contract (http://mises.org/story/2120#11) says that a third party has no claim to damages where he is not a party to the contract. Now this rule has recently fallen out of fashion, but it is a fundamental (though tedious) facet of our law system. This is how our founders understood it and how Austrians understand it.

This means that if the people feel they've been ripped off by exorbitant bonuses they can not sue the executives since they are not a party to the contract between AIG and its execs. Likewise, the government can't directly go to the executives.

What has to happen is the people must petition government for the money that they were taxed to pay for the bailout back from the government. From there, the government could get the money back from AIG, and AIG could get it from the executives.

The deal the government made with AIG in bailing them out made no requirement in regards to bonuses. In fact, Dodd explicitly protected them. Therefore the government has no ground to go after the bonuses directly, and its only course of action is to take back the bailout money, which would result in AIG bankruptcy, in which AIG would be allowed to restructure its contracts with the execs.

This is Judge Napolitano's position. And though I recognize it is a crappy situation, which should have been avoided by not bailing out AIG in the first place, we cannot allow a precedent of the government rewriting contracts no matter how unpopular they are. To be fair, the precedent was set during the New Deal, like many bad precedents were.

Now if if AIG had officially merged with the government, and legally become an agency of the government as a part of the bailout, the the government could go after the bonuses directly since they inherited the contract that was with AIG but is now with the single AIG/government agency. However, as I understand the bailout, AIG was not formally taken into a receivership with the government, but I am happy to be corrected on this point.

[satchelmcqueen]

Ron Paul is wrong on this one. And I think this is the only time that I've ever really said that.

Let me explain.

1. There is the contract between the people and their government. (taxes)


i didnt agree to that contract.:)

[Dripping Rain]

i didnt agree to that contract.:)

+1
Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, & Cody Willard all have taken the "moral" position. it is immoral to support the theft of AIG cartel. its also counterproductive because most rational & irrational people will be turned off by that. i also think AIG cartel dont have a right of contract here because theyre now Nationalised and belong to the guberment. so the only contract is a forced one between the people and the gubament.

[fletcher]

I have to agree with Napolitano.

I agree. The contract doesn't go away because the government gave them money. If negating their bonus contracts was a prerequisite to receiving bailout money then good, they don't get the bonus. But it wasn't. This country is going to lose far more by the government interfering with these contracts than it will if it didn't. Keep in mind that aig will just give that $165 million to someone else, taxpayers will never ever see that money again. It was gone the second gave it to them.

[axiomata]

i didnt agree to that contract.:)
I understand that concern, and I used the word "contract" for symmetry, but in regards to the law, the Constitution is a contract between the people and their government.

If you think you can overturn some 200 years of law based on this assumption on this case, then go for it.

[Epic]

Ron Paul is wrong on this one. And I think this is the only time that I've ever really said that.

Let me explain.

1. There is the contract between the people and their government. (taxes)
2. There is the contract between the government and AIG. (post bailout)
3. There is the contract between AIG and its executives. (bonuses)

The privity rule of contract (http://mises.org/story/2120#11) says that a third party has no claim to damages where he is not a party to the contract. Now this rule has recently fallen out of fashion, but it is a fundamental (though tedious) facet of our law system. This is how our founders understood it and how Austrians understand it.

This means that if the people feel they've been ripped off by exorbitant bonuses they can not sue the executives since they are not a party to the contract between AIG and its execs. Likewise, the government can't directly go to the executives.

What has to happen is the people must petition government for the money that they were taxed to pay for the bailout back from the government. From there, the government could get the money back from AIG, and AIG could get it from the executives.

The deal the government made with AIG in bailing them out made no requirement in regards to bonuses. In fact, Dodd explicitly protected them. Therefore the government has no ground to go after the bonuses directly, and its only course of action is to take back the bailout money, which would result in AIG bankruptcy, in which AIG would be allowed to restructure its contracts with the execs.

This is Judge Napolitano's position. And though I recognize it is a crappy situation, which should have been avoided by not bailing out AIG in the first place, we cannot allow a precedent of the government rewriting contracts no matter how unpopular they are. To be fair, the precedent was set during the New Deal, like many bad precedents were.

Now if if AIG had officially merged with the government, and legally become an agency of the government as a part of the bailout, the the government could go after the bonuses directly since they inherited the contract that was with AIG but is now with the single AIG/government agency. However, as I understand the bailout, AIG was not formally taken into a receivership with the government, but I am happy to be corrected on this point.

Correct. Judge Napolitano and Glenn Beck are right. Cody Willard is wrong. I can't believe you guys are buying this crap about not needing to uphold contracts between two voluntary parties.

The contracts, when agreed to, were between two non-governmental entities. Therefore, it's valid and can't be abrogated, period. Don't genuflect at any political altar - stand up for freedom and the rule of contracts.

And if you just want to get mad at somebody, get mad at the government for giving AIG the money.

[Conza88]

Beck and Napolitano are wrong.

Ron Paul, Lew and any other sane person = is right.

But doucheBeck and Napolitano are correct about it being a diversion. But then so is Beck's piece. False left / false right.......

[axiomata]

Beck and Napolitano are wrong.

Ron Paul, Lew and any other sane person = is right.

But doucheBeck and Napolitano are correct about it being a diversion. But then so is Beck's piece. False left / false right.......
How about you make an argument instead of a statement with an ad hominem thrown on the top?

[Dripping Rain]

How about you make an argument instead of a statement with an ad hominem thrown on the top?

i made an argument above too bad you missed it. im not a constitutional scholar, Im not a lawyer. im a simple man. my argument is simple
Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, & Cody Willard all have taken the "moral" position. it is immoral to support the theft of AIG cartel. its also counterproductive because most rational & irrational people will be turned off by that. i also think AIG cartel dont have a right of contract here because theyre now Nationalised and belong to the guberment. so the only contract is a forced one between the people and the gubament.

[Dripping Rain]

Beck and Napolitano are wrong.

Ron Paul, Lew and any other sane person = is right.

But doucheBeck and Napolitano are correct about it being a diversion. But then so is Beck's piece. False left / false right.......

+1

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have to side with the Judge on this issue as well. While it's true that the government essentially stole from us, the American citizens, to bailout AIG I don't blame AIG for what their contracts already stipulated. I think setting a precedent of the government breaking contracts is too much of a threat to the nation as a whole, and is certainly unconstitutional. The fact is that we should be mad at the government for taking the money in the first place, not AIG for contracts they made beforehand. Had the government not taken that money in the first place then the American taxpayers wouldn't be an unwilling participant in that contract, as Lew Rockwell put it.

[axiomata]

i made an argument above too bad you missed it. im not a constitutional scholar, Im not a lawyer. im a simple man. my argument is simple
Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, & Cody Willard all have taken the "moral" position. it is immoral to support the theft of AIG cartel. its also counterproductive because most rational & irrational people will be turned off by that. i also think AIG cartel dont have a right of contract here because theyre now Nationalised and belong to the guberment. so the only contract is a forced one between the people and the gubament.
Actually, I didn't miss it. (In fact I appreciate, that you were the only one to explain your reasoning.)

And the fundamentals of your argument are correct. I.e., that using taxpayer funds to pay failed executive bonuses is immoral. The difference between you and I is how to rectify this immorality. I laid out the constitutional way, your way is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional based on the legal theory of privity of contract and and article I, section 10, clause 1 (the contract clause) of the Constitution.

[Dripping Rain]

Actually, I didn't miss it. (In fact I appreciate, that you were the only one to explain your reasoning.)

And the fundamentals of your argument are correct. I.e., that using taxpayer funds to pay failed executive bonuses is immoral. The difference between you and I is how to rectify this immorality. I laid out the constitutional way, your way is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional based on the legal theory of privity of contract and and article I, section 10, clause 1 (the contract clause) of the Constitution.

thanks for your respectful axiomata but no offence please. I think you guys who sided with Beck & the Judge are promoting voluntary servitude. just my opinion

[axiomata]

thanks for your respectful axiomata but no offence please. I think you guys who sided with Beck & the Judge are promoting voluntary servitude. just my opinion
Would you mind explaining precisely how so? because I do not follow.

[Epic]

If I make a contract with a friend that says he has to pay me 5 dollars, but then the goverment pays him 5 dollars after the contract is signed...

then the friend still has to pay me 5 dollars!

A contract between 2 people, made voluntarily, is sacred. You can't break it. Not even if the government pays money to one of them.

This is the moral position, constitutional position, and the natural rights position.

[Dripping Rain]

Would you mind explaining precisely how so? because I do not follow.

imo this is an involuntary contract because the gubament violated their terms of contract. sec 1 of the 13th ammendment which prohibited involuntary servitude states
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
you see involuntary servitude is a very loose term. imho the taxing the people for the bailouts and leaving my generation and the younger ones to foot the tab is involuntary servitude to the extent that people my age will have to foot that 165 million to the CEOs of AIG without their consent. anyone who claims that the AIG cartel have a right to that money are therfore promoting involuntary servitude

[Epic]

Government was not a party to the contract.

All that is irrelevant.

Government subsidizes everything! If a corn farmer that is subsidized has a contract to pay an employee a bonus, they still have to pay it!

If your position is that contracts between entities that take money from gov are invalid, that doesn't leave many valid contracts...

[Conza88]

How about you make an argument instead of a statement with an ad hominem thrown on the top?

lulz. I didn't realise there was a person in existence on this forum, that doesn't already know my opinion on Beck and the whole faux news, neo-con scum.

You want the argument, here it is: What you will now see from the Media (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=177088)

Notice date. :rolleyes:

[axiomata]

lulz. I didn't realise there was a person in existence on this forum, that doesn't already know my opinion on Beck and the whole faux news, neo-con scum.

You want the argument, here it is: What you will now see from the Media (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=177088)

Notice date. :rolleyes:
What does Beck have to do with my argument and the Judge's argument?

[tremendoustie]

If I make a contract with a friend that says he has to pay me 5 dollars, but then the goverment pays him 5 dollars after the contract is signed...

then the friend still has to pay me 5 dollars!

A contract between 2 people, made voluntarily, is sacred. You can't break it. Not even if the government pays money to one of them.

This is the moral position, constitutional position, and the natural rights position.

The slavery already happened -- when our money was stolen and given to the banks.

Honoring or dishonoring contracts at that point is immaterial. The damage has been done.

This question is like asking, "What's the most honorable way to invest slave money?" There isn't one. It's dishonorable because it's slave money. It's immoral for the executives to get our money, it's immoral for the business to get our money, it's immoral for the government to violate contracts.

Sometimes when you commit a clear moral outrage, there is no good moral path forward immedately after. When asked, "What is the most moral way to treat your slaves?", the right answer is "There are none, and the situation cannot be salvaged. You own slaves, which is an irredeemably immoral act".

[Gin]

Just watched Freedom watch. after watching Glenn Beck defending the CEOs of AIG, their contracts & how the government doesnt have the right to infringe their $165 million Bonuses. Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and Cody Willard all said that AIG CEOs dont have contract rights to get bonuses because this is not a voluntary contract. It is money that was forcefully taken from the American people by the government. Lew Rockwell went as far as sayingthat the AIG CEOs should get zero salaries and bonuses.
Thank you Dr Paul, prof Rockwell, & Cody Willard for saying the truth as it is. Im glad i didnt get brainwashed by Beck eventhough I nearly got brainwashed
cant wait for the youtube and thanks to mrchubbs in advance

In all honesty I don't believe Beck was trying to mis-inform as Rush is saying the same thing. They are both going on the fact that contracts were signed last year in hopes to retain these people. These issues aren't as cut and dry as everyone likes them to be and I have noticed that all the folks that are mad at Beck and don't want to trust him, will look at anything to continue to not trust him... He is human after all.... he isn't always correct.... I do see his point about the contracts tho... if these contracts are broken, then what's to say other contracts won't be too and then so it goes... just another piece of American Freedoms going down the toilet.

[nate895]

I have to say, I disagree with Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell on this one. Any law that would take away their bonuses is an ex post facto Bill of Attainder, and is therefore unconstitutional. It is dangerous precedent to use an unconstitutional power to do anything. One moment they are taking away bonuses from employees of bailed-out companies, next they are taking away bonuses from anyone they see as too rich.

Edit: And I haven't watched Beck on this issue.

[Epic]

The slavery already happened -- when our money was stolen and given to the banks.

Honoring or dishonoring contracts at that point is immaterial. The damage has been done.

This question is like asking, "What's the most honorable way to invest slave money?" There isn't one. It's dishonorable because it's slave money. It's immoral for the executives to get our money, it's immoral for the business to get our money, it's immoral for the government to violate contracts.

Sometimes when you commit a clear moral outrage, there is no good moral path forward immedately after. When asked, "What is the most moral way to treat your slaves?", the right answer is "There are none, and the situation cannot be salvaged. You own slaves, which is an irredeemably immoral act".

1. 2 wrongs don't make a right
2. If that is your conclusion, then all bonuses paid ever in that company's history and all bonuses paid ever in any company that has ever been subsidized by government by 1 cent are invalid and the prior bonuses should be physically taken from the receiver.

[tremendoustie]

1. 2 wrongs don't make a right
2. If that is your conclusion, then all bonuses paid ever in that company's history and all bonuses paid ever in any company that has ever been subsidized by government by 1 cent are invalid and the prior bonuses should be physically taken from the receiver.

I am not saying they should take the money back. I am saying there is no right answer. Immoral actions can sometimes put yourself in a situation where there is no moral choice. Letting them keep the money is immoral, and taking it is immoral also.

It's like gay marriage IMO. If you have government run marriage, there's no right answer anymore. Prohibiting and recognizing gay marriage are both immoral.

[Todd]

Just watched Freedom watch. after watching Glenn Beck defending the CEOs of AIG, their contracts & how the government doesnt have the right to infringe their $165 million Bonuses. Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and
Cody Willard all said that AIG CEOs dont have contract rights to get bonuses because this is not a voluntary contract. It is money that was forcefully taken from the American people by the government. Lew Rockwell went as far as sayingthat the AIG CEOs should get zero salaries and bonuses.
Thank you Dr Paul, prof Rockwell, & Cody Willard for saying the truth as it is. Im glad i didnt get brainwashed by Beck eventhough I nearly got brainwashed
cant wait for the youtube and thanks to mrchubbs in advance

Could you expound upon what makes the contract not a voluntary one?

I see it this way but am open to a different point of view:

A. AIG was going bankrupt, so unless there was a bailout, there was no paycheck much less a bonus. The contracts couldn't be met under the current system. B. Once you take a handout from the Gov then you are bought and paid for. Contract null and void according to Uncle Sammy

[Mani]

In all honesty I don't believe Beck was trying to mis-inform as Rush is saying the same thing. They are both going on the fact that contracts were signed last year in hopes to retain these people. These issues aren't as cut and dry as everyone likes them to be and I have noticed that all the folks that are mad at Beck and don't want to trust him, will look at anything to continue to not trust him... He is human after all.... he isn't always correct.... I do see his point about the contracts tho... if these contracts are broken, then what's to say other contracts won't be too and then so it goes... just another piece of American Freedoms going down the toilet.


That's the part that worries me. 71 people made a deal with a private company, and those 71 people are some of the most unpopular people in America. I hate AIG and I wanted it to fail as it should have and as many others have said.

But I feel a couple things:

1) The public is furious and this is a witch hunt. Congress is feeding the AIG exec's to the lions and pointing the finger at them. Yet they are the ones who've created this monster, and it has made EVERYONE forget about the millions of dollars in polar bear exhibits and $50 million in miami swimming pools, etc (in a few moments you could look at all the ridiculous pork and realize $165million is a drop of piss in an ocean). Congress is so good at deflecting the blame, I want to nominate them for an Oscar or something.

2) Tomorrow if I'm in the most unpopular group in America will the government be able to tax 90% - 100% of my money because my employment is hated right now?
The government can just start writing up it's own laws as it goes to take money out of my pocked because my employer is the bad guy right now?

The idea of the government going on a witch hunt and writing up new laws specifically for a couple of individuals, specifically to take money away from those people, scares the CRAP OUT OF ME!

There's no proof these 71 people broke any law, so just to FUCK with them, the government is going to write up a new law and say, "FUCK YOU. We'll make our own laws to take that money from you! One way or another you can't have it!"

HOLY FUCK! That is the most unamerican thing I've ever heard and I can't tell you how many times I've heard members of our government pretty much say these words this week!

I'm so disturbed by our government going after this group of people, because of the way they are going after them.


What good is my contract after today? Tomorrow I work for a company that pollutes some river, but does so with government inspection, and it's an allowable amount of pollution as it stands today. They are in compliance with the law, but some child goes swimming and is tragically poisoned and dies and my employer is now the most EVIL of all companies. The public demands justice! The government decides to intervene, they create new laws within a couple days that make our company in noncompliance with the law.

But that's not good enough, someone has to PAY! The public is not satisfied! So they tweak the law and the next day the add a noncompliance FINE!

Here's the catch, all mid-level and upper management employees can be held liable. So now my salary is in question because our liability is we get super taxed for being in noncompliance. I lose 90% of my income within 2-3 days because the company I work for became evil overnight.

I'm sorry if that's not a good example, but this witch hunt scares me. Not because AIG is good or bad, but fuck! They are pissed at 71 people (and congress knew about the bonuses ALL ALONG) and they can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want to these people, regardless if these people did anything wrong or not.


From the evidence I've seen so far, these 71 people are guilty of two things:
1) They work for a bad/evil company.
2) THEY make TOO MUCH MONEY.

Fuck me, if being rich in this country is now a goddamn crime.


Sorry for my rant, but I'm TRULY FRIGHTENED of a government that can start up a witch hunt and destroy and create LAWS AT WILL, to satisfy an angry mob.

It's bullshit the government gave money to AIG. It's bullshit these guys are getting paid millions of dollars from our hard earned income. But it's not illegal. No matter who paid for it, those 71 people are doing nothing illegal.

And to think the government will create their own laws to forceably take it back, is the last thing I would ever want from my government.

Get ready my friends, we go down this road, there's no going back.

[Truth Warrior]

I think the thread title has gotten it backwards. Glenn ain't nearly EARNED his credibility bones yet.<IMHO>

[Malakai0]

Gov breaking private contracts = bad

Gov stealing from America and handing it over to a handful of elites = also bad

If RP and Lew Rockwell think there is legitimate reason to not pay their bonuses then I am confident it would not break contract law, as neither of those men would ever advocate doing so.

[axiomata]

I think the thread title is backwards. Glenn ain't EARNED his bones yet.<IMHO>
Please stay on topic. ;)

[Annihilia]

This whole Beck MSM brainwashing hysteria has to stop. While I caution any MSM figure's motives, Beck has been doing well lately and to turn people away like that makes us look like uptight pricks or conspiracy theorists. We should embrace them, but never give them the reigns to the movement.

Anyway, both Beck and Napolitano are looking at the contract between AIG and it's executives purely from a Constitutional perspective. RP & Lew Rockwell seem to be looking at the bailout legislation itself, the legitimacy of the overall picture, and not specifically the contract.

I am pretty sure they BOTH recognize that contractual obligations need to be met and the problem lies with the money going to the damn company in the first place. They're talking about two different things so it only looks like they're not on the same page.

[Truth Warrior]

Please stay on topic. ;) The thread title IS part of the topic. ;)

[powerofreason]

Actually, I didn't miss it. (In fact I appreciate, that you were the only one to explain your reasoning.)

And the fundamentals of your argument are correct. I.e., that using taxpayer funds to pay failed executive bonuses is immoral. The difference between you and I is how to rectify this immorality. I laid out the constitutional way, your way is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional based on the legal theory of privity of contract and and article I, section 10, clause 1 (the contract clause) of the Constitution.

Personally, I care about what is RIGHT not what some crusty old piece of paper written by some long dead elitists says. The Constitution is not that great of a libertarian document. The Articles of Confederation were 10x better than the Constitution.

When I see you type, "your way is unconstitutional" that means nothing to me. I am not bound to this document. Lew is right, as usual.

[constituent]

Please stay on topic. ;)

ewww.... so close.

i almost laughed, and then i lol'd.

[constituent]

The thread title IS part of the topic. ;)

reckon? :D

[constituent]

Personally, I care about what is RIGHT not what some crusty old piece of paper written by some long dead elitists says. The Constitution is not that great of a libertarian document. The Articles of Confederation were 10x better than the Constitution.

When I see you type, "your way is unconstitutional" that means nothing to me. I am not bound to this document. Lew is right, as usual.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/119539914_da27696dbb_o.jpg

[Truth Warrior]

reckon? :D reckon! :D

[powerofreason]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/119539914_da27696dbb_o.jpg

Woo hoo!

[Annihilia]

Personally, I care about what is RIGHT not what some crusty old piece of paper written by some long dead elitists says. The Constitution is not that great of a libertarian document. The Articles of Confederation were 10x better than the Constitution.

When I see you type, "your way is unconstitutional" that means nothing to me. I am not bound to this document. Lew is right, as usual.

Right and wrong are often subjective, which is why we are a nation of laws. Most of our foreign intervention is justified because people are lead to believe it is the right thing to do. America is bound by the Constitution, plain and simple. Let's try our best to return to that mindset before we contemplate destroying the foundations of this country because some guys stole a bunch of money.

If you can't wait and would like to start a separate nation under the Articles of Confederation, be my guest. Build an island in international waters like those other guys.

[constituent]

America is bound by the Constitution, plain and simple. Let's try our best to return to that mindset before we contemplate destroying the foundations of this country because some guys stole a bunch of money.

Cool, just make sure to do it on your dime.

[Annihilia]

Cool, just make sure to do it on your dime.

If you're so pissed that you are willing to sidestep the Constitution to get your way, you are really no better than they are. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Allowing government to nullify a contract is just as bad as allowing taxpayer theft and will ultimately harm the taxpayers more in the long run as it creates an awful precedent.

Just because something is right, does not mean the government should do it. Isn't that one of the core principles of this movement? Congress fucked up, we need to hold THEM accountable, not AIG. They're just a diversion from the real issue.

And for those of you who dislike the Consitution, run for Congress, get a bunch of others on your side, then vote on an amendment to nullify the entire document and replace it with the Articles of Confederation. If your idea is so sound and logical, why shouldn't people agree? Either that or take power by force and institute the Articles. That'll show 'em!

[powerofreason]

Right and wrong are often subjective, which is why we are a nation of laws.

Right and wrong can be determined by logic and reason. The one basic and universal law 99% of humanity can agree on is do no harm. Other laws like speeding and what not are just made up by the State for their own purposes.


Most of our foreign intervention is justified because people are lead to believe it is the right thing to do.

Thats what the State does: its a big mafia disguised as a helpful organization. Mafia + Propaganda = Government.


America is bound by the Constitution, plain and simple.

Uhh, who's bound by the Constitution? Not me, I want nothing to do with it. Not the politicians, thats obvious enough. The Constitution is dead. What more is there to violate?


Let's try our best to return to that mindset before we contemplate destroying the foundations of this country because some guys stole a bunch of money.

I am not opposed to incremental steps but I am opposed to gradualism. Planning on returning to the Constitution is gradualism.

"Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice"
--Murray Rothbard



If you can't wait and would like to start a separate nation under the Articles of Confederation, be my guest. Build an island in international waters like those other guys.

I would like to be free and I have a right to be wherever I own property.

[constituent]

If you're so pissed that you are willing to sidestep the Constitution to get your way, you are really no better than they are. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Allowing government to nullify a contract is just as bad as allowing taxpayer theft and will ultimately harm the taxpayers more in the long run as it creates an awful precedent.

Huh? Who said I was for government nullifying a contract? Please, quote me.



Just because something is right, does not mean the government should do it.

Preaching to the choir, padre.



Isn't that one of the core principles of this movement?

Which movement?



Congress fucked up, we need to hold THEM accountable, not AIG.

I'd rather just cut off their salary myself, fire them altogether. Something tells me that authoritarian statists like yourself just won't stand for it though...



They're just a diversion from the real issue.

What isn't?



And for those of you who dislike the Consitution, run for Congress, get a bunch of others on your side, then vote on an amendment to nullify the entire document

OMG, please stop there, this is just too sad. I call "mercy rule."

[powerofreason]

And for those of you who dislike the Consitution, run for Congress, get a bunch of others on your side, then vote on an amendment to nullify the entire document and replace it with the Articles of Confederation. If your idea is so sound and logical, why shouldn't people agree? Either that or take power by force and institute the Articles. That'll show 'em!

Good lord. Go kill yourself.

I DO NOT CONSENT TO YOUR SYSTEM NOR AM I REQUIRED TO I AM A FREE MAN

[Annihilia]

Right and wrong can be determined by logic and reason. The one basic and universal law 99% of humanity can agree on is do no harm. Other laws like speeding and what not are just made up by the State for their own purposes.There are very few absolutes in this world. Every single human action and inaction can be judged whether right or wrong and you are telling me that all of these infinite actions have some definite logical conclusion? The fundamental ones, our natural rights, are covered mostly in our Constitution. The bulk of it is a grey area. In example, it is considered "wrong" to be rude to another person and you can damage somebody mentally. Maybe we should police politeness.


Thats what the State does: its a big mafia disguised as a helpful organization. Mafia + Propaganda = Government.Are you an anarchist or a Libertarian?


Uhh, who's bound by the Constitution? Not me, I want nothing to do with it. Not the politicians, thats obvious enough. The Constitution is dead. What more is there to violate? Why hold them to a standard that you cannot hold yourself to. Why should they be restrained in what they do if you don't see any limitations. You're like the couch potato that calls professional athletes morons for fumbling the ball.


I am not opposed to incremental steps but I am opposed to gradualism. Planning on returning to the Constitution is gradualism.

"Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice"
--Murray RothbardMy goal is for a return to the Constitution, so I am not seeing anything wrong here.


I would like to be free and I have a right to be wherever I own property.Fair enough, as long as you don't harm anyone else.

[slacker921]

It doesn't matter where the money for the bonuses came from - the contract is between two private parties. The Judge is right.

And in addition... most of those contracts say that if the bonus isn't paid then the contract is breached... that typically means huge penalties placed on the company so they would end up paying far more if they don't pay the bonus.

I know Fortune 100 contract attorneys and they're livid that Congress is considering breaking private contracts. It's a very dangerous road to go down.

[constituent]

Why should they be restrained in what they do if you don't see any limitations.

They are?

[Annihilia]

Good lord. Go kill yourself.

I DO NOT CONSENT TO YOUR SYSTEM NOR AM I REQUIRED TO I AM A FREE MAN

If you're going to cry like a baby instead of defend your position, I think you need to check yourself.

[Annihilia]

They are?

Of course they aren't, which is the problem. But to say "See, they didn't so we shouldn't either" is hardly a better idea.

[powerofreason]

There are very few absolutes in this world. Every single human action and inaction can be judged whether right or wrong and you are telling me that all of these infinite actions have some definite logical conclusion? The fundamental ones, our natural rights, are covered mostly in our Constitution. The bulk of it is a grey area. In example, it is considered "wrong" to be rude to another person and you can damage somebody mentally. Maybe we should police politeness.

Rights can be determined through logic and reason. Otherwise you just have arbitrary reasons for rights, such as "well my god says so." A violation of a person's natural rights is always wrong, always a crime. Stealing is always wrong. Murder is always wrong. Fraud is always wrong. Basically, aggression is wrong. And thats that.


Are you an anarchist or a Libertarian?


Both. Either term fits me. Most accurately I am an anarcho capitalist. Lew Rockwell is as well but he still prefers the term libertarian. So either works, although anarchist has come to have a very negative connotation.


Why hold them to a standard that you cannot hold yourself to. Why should they be restrained in what they do if you don't see any limitations. You're like the couch potato that calls professional athletes morons for fumbling the ball.

What are you talking about? I don't violate anyones rights. If I did I would take the punishment, like any other reasonable person.


My goal is for a return to the Constitution, so I am not seeing anything wrong here.


Thats fine. My goal is freedom. And no one is getting there by gradualism.


Fair enough, as long as you don't harm anyone else.


You advocate aggression by endorsing the concept of a Constitutional government, whether you realize it or not. Morally, I am entitled to harm in self defense. Whether it would be wise to say, shoot a cop, is a different issue.

[constituent]

Of course they aren't, which is the problem.

Were they ever?

[Where's that quote about insanity and repetition?]



But to say "See, they didn't so we shouldn't either" is hardly a better idea.

I said that? Me?

[powerofreason]

If you're going to cry like a baby instead of defend your position, I think you need to check yourself.

I'm not crying, I'm just making myself abundantly clear. I don't think you realize how annoying and cliche, the "run for office" line is. I don't have to do anything to be entitled to freedom. Democracy is craziness.

[Annihilia]

Rights can be determined through logic and reason. Otherwise you just have arbitrary reasons for rights, such as "well my god says so." A violation of a person's natural rights is always wrong, always a crime. Stealing is always wrong. Murder is always wrong. Fraud is always wrong. Basically, aggression is wrong. And thats that.

...

You advocate aggression by endorsing the concept of a Constitutional government, whether you realize it or not. Morally, I can entitled to harm in self defense. Whether it would be wise to say, shoot a cop, is a different issue.

I understand where you are coming from, but do realize that you are not the only human being on this planet, which unfortunately means that you cannot be completely free from the will of others unless you relegate yourself to a small self-sustainable island.

You say I endorse aggression through the Constitution, but I say that it is the best compromise thus far for self-determined human civilization. Note the word civilization.

[Dripping Rain]

In all honesty I don't believe Beck was trying to mis-inform as Rush is saying the same thing. They are both going on the fact that contracts were signed last year in hopes to retain these people. These issues aren't as cut and dry as everyone likes them to be and I have noticed that all the folks that are mad at Beck and don't want to trust him, will look at anything to continue to not trust him... He is human after all.... he isn't always correct.... I do see his point about the contracts tho... if these contracts are broken, then what's to say other contracts won't be too and then so it goes... just another piece of American Freedoms going down the toilet.

according to what i know a bad contract isnt valid. by law if you sign a contract thats against the law the contracts void.

Heres another thought Dr Paul gave a speech today saying that its unconstitutional to tax the AIG execs a 90% tax. so heres what i think the good Doc meant. he probably meant the AIG execs shouldve never gotten the bonus, but since they got it its unconstitutional to tax them 90% for that money. thats the only way this makes sense now
just to make matters clear
or as shocker says below instead of trampling on this contract theyre now trampling on the constitution instead

[NerveShocker]

I might be mistaken but it doesn't appear they will be breaching any contracts. Instead they are going to tax the bonuses 90% retroactively. It seems they will only be stepping on the constitution and leaving private contracts alone.. at least nothing "new" is changing for the worst.

[powerofreason]

I understand where you are coming from, but do realize that you are not the only human being on this planet, which unfortunately means that you cannot be completely free from the will of others unless you relegate yourself to a small self-sustainable island.

Crime will never go away. That doesn't mean we can't oppose it 100%.


You say I endorse aggression through the Constitution, but I say that it is the best compromise thus far for self-determined human civilization. Note the word civilization.


Then you just need to do some reading. There's For a New Liberty, by Rothbard; The Market for Liberty, by the Tannehills; and The Left the Right and the State by Rockwell; I'd be pretty surprised if any libertarian could finish those books and still support their own little perfect version of the State. It's a monster, you can't control it. Its like the One Ring in the Lord of the Rings story.

[Dripping Rain]

Government was not a party to the contract.

All that is irrelevant.

Government subsidizes everything! If a corn farmer that is subsidized has a contract to pay an employee a bonus, they still have to pay it!

If your position is that contracts between entities that take money from gov are invalid, that doesn't leave many valid contracts...

let me quote axiomata who takes your same point of view


Ron Paul is wrong on this one. And I think this is the only time that I've ever really said that.

Let me explain.

1. There is the contract between the people and their government. (taxes)
2. There is the contract between the government and AIG. (post bailout)
3. There is the contract between AIG and its executives. (bonuses)

[Conza88]

Beck and Napolitano are wrong.

Ron Paul, Lew and any other sane person = is right.

But doucheBeck and Napolitano are correct about it being a diversion. But then so is Beck's piece. False left / false right.......



How about you make an argument instead of a statement with an ad hominem thrown on the top?




lulz. I didn't realise there was a person in existence on this forum, that doesn't already know my opinion on Beck and the whole faux news, neo-con scum.

You want the argument, here it is: What you will now see from the Media (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=177088)


What does Beck have to do with my argument and the Judge's argument?

Nothing. And does it need to? NO. Because you asked for my argument. Pwned.

And if you read the thread, it includes Beck. :rolleyes: