Ron on Fascism

[react1200]

If Ron's austerity cuts to education and health were implemented, who would help the poor? Who would vaccinate them in order to stop pandemics? We know capitalism cannot function without a lower class. Who will look after them to make sure they are able to educate/sustain themselves?

Case in point, Mexico's collapse, which started after US and British waged economic war against them via de-industrilization and debt via IMF (as in Argentina), has decimated their health care system. Now we have a pandemic and that is global. Government is not inherently corrupt if properly regulated, corrupt deregulation, such as repealing Glass Steagal, has caused much of our woes. We need a new FDR style Pecora commission to root out the corrupt financiers. Anyone who thinks privatizing public infrastructure such as utilities only needs to look at Enron to see what these corporations are capable of.

Most of our current vital infrastructure only exists because of the New Deal (electricity, damns, super highways, etc.) so how can we say FDR was evil as did Amity Slaes and the American Liberty League (who openly supported Hitler) did. We have British financier operatives, such as George Soros, in our midst bringing down our system and thus our way of life. They are murderer's as was JP Morgan, Dupont, Rothchilds, Bush, Alcoa, etc, who financed Hitler. Austrian economics will serve to throw the majority of the population in extreme poverty, private capital will not invest in infrastructure or anything that is beneficial to the greater good, they are only interested in profits. These policies will only serve to depopulate the world, which the Queen of England has openly stated as the agenda.

We know the system is bankrupt due to the estimated quadrillion or so credit default swaps. We need to put it death now and restart in coordination with other countries. In order to have a sustainable economy and society we need to invest into nuclear and desalination of water.

My question to Ron, how do his policies address the issues people living in extreme poverty, the disabled, the handicapped, the sick? Also, volunteerism will only work IF people actually decide to intervene, judging from our culture, and what is happening in Africa, we wont.

[heavenlyboy34]

RP has advocated allowing the private sector to handle these problems. I'm sure someone will come up with some good quotes for you. Welcome to the forums! :)

[Danke]

Why don't you spend some time on this forum first and read up. All this has been discussed and answered before. Many times and with many hundreds of posts from numerous members.

[react1200]

RP has advocated allowing the private sector to handle these problems. I'm sure someone will come up with some good quotes for you. Welcome to the forums! :)

How is a poor, incapable sic person, going to be left to the private sector for a solution? Their only responsibility as a corporation is to make profits and please Wall St.

[jmlfod87]

If Ron's austerity cuts to education and health were implemented, who would help the poor? Who would vaccinate them in order to stop pandemics? We know capitalism cannot function without a lower class. Who will look after them to make sure they are able to educate/sustain themselves?

1. If the departments of education, health, and welfare in general were abolished there would be less poor to need to help. Education, health, etc would cost less and be of a higher quality. This would make these services easier for the poor to afford, those who still can't afford to educate their children will simply put their children to work. All valuable learning isn't procudes in schools, children who don't go to school and go to work instead will be learning valuable skills that will give them an edge over children who do go to school, considering they will have years of experience in the work force to compete with the kids with diplomas.

2. When taxes are lowered donations to private charities increase. What you are suggesting is that American are such evil people that they will just sit there and watch their neighbors suffer. If Americans are such morally reprhensible people as to not care for those in need, then what hope if there of government, which would be made up of the same reprehensible individuals?


Case in point, Mexico's collapse, which started after US and British waged economic war against them via de-industrilization and debt via IMF (as in Argentina), has decimated their health care system. Now we have a pandemic and that is global. Government is not inherently corrupt if properly regulated, corrupt deregulation, such as repealing Glass Steagal, has caused much of our woes. We need a new FDR style Pecora commission to root out the corrupt financiers. Anyone who thinks privatizing public infrastructure such as utilities only needs to look at Enron to see what these corporations are capable of.

Glass-stegeal had very little to do with our economic woes.

The IMF is a government sponsored agency, not the free market. Any trouble they cause cannot be blamed on the free market.

Enron was a case of fraud. Fraud is a crime. Just because one corporation tried to commit a crime doesn't mean all corproations are criminal. You are committing the fallacy of composition.

Everything FDR did made the depression worse. His Pecora commission was just another one of his many wastes of time and resources.



Most of our current vital infrastructure only exists because of the New Deal (electricity, damns, super highways, etc.) so how can we say FDR was evil as did Amity Slaes and the American Liberty League (who openly supported Hitler) did. We have British financier operatives, such as George Soros, in our midst bringing down our system and thus our way of life. They are murderer's as was JP Morgan, Dupont, Rothchilds, Bush, Alcoa, etc, who financed Hitler. Austrian economics will serve to throw the majority of the population in extreme poverty, private capital will not invest in infrastructure or anything that is beneficial to the greater good, they are only interested in profits. These policies will only serve to depopulate the world, which the Queen of England has openly stated as the agenda.


You obviously have no understanding of austrian economics whatsoever. Please visit www.mises.org and get yourself educated.

Vital infrastructure does not exist only because of the New Deal. The free market could have produced the same infrastrucure at a far more cost effective rate. Everything FDR did prolonged the Great Depression. Keynesian spending only stalls the market recovery. We didn't get out of the Great Depression until 1948 when government spending was cut 2/3 and taxes were cut 1/3.

You say private capital will not invest in infratructure that is beneficial to the greater good, but if the infrastructure was truly beneficial to the great good then there would be a profit interest for entrepreneurs to invest in. No force can aggregate demand more effectively and productively than the free market. All the government can do is GUESS what should be produced, the market KNOWS what should be produced, because people are willing to pay for the products and services.

Who the hell still listens to what the Queen of England has to say?

[quote]We know the system is bankrupt due to the estimated quadrillion or so credit default swaps. We need to put it death now and restart in coordination with other countries. In order to have a sustainable economy and society we need to invest into nuclear and desalination of water.

The system is bankrupt due to the Federal Reserve's manipulation of the money supply which results in the vicious boom-bust cycle which the great austrian economist FA Hayek won the nobel prize for proving. "Credit default swaps" are merely a symptom of the crisis, not the cause, which is artifically lowered interest rates.

In order to have a sustainable economy we have to let the free market work, open our markets, cut taxes, and stop bailing out failed enterprises.

You want nuclear power? Its the government that wont let private firms from creating one. Nucelar plants are regulated to the point that the start up costs are in the tens of millions, and then they are banned from being created altogether. The free market would love a transition to nuclear power, its your precious government that is in the way.


My question to Ron, how do his policies address the issues people living in extreme poverty, the disabled, the handicapped, the sick? Also, volunteerism will only work IF people actually decide to intervene, judging from our culture, and what is happening in Africa, we wont.


Because people wont intervene in wars that are occuring thousands of miles away you believe they wont help their neighbor? Funny, we got along fine for thousands of years without welfare, what makes you think we depend on it now? If welfare was abolished all those resources would be dumped on the free market which would use them far more efficiently to create jobs, lower pirces, innovate products, and raise wages. All of those functions would greatly help the poor far more than any government handout.

www.mises.org. Take the red pill.

[heavenlyboy34]

How is a poor, incapable sic person, going to be left to the private sector for a solution? Their only responsibility as a corporation is to make profits and please Wall St.

Please take the time to read the online Ron Paul archive of writings here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/#art2). :cool::)

[Meatwasp]

How is a poor, incapable sic person, going to be left to the private sector for a solution? Their only responsibility as a corporation is to make profits and please Wall St.

The church, his neighbors and his family are good choices. That is what we depended on before they gave us socialized welfare,

[dannno]

Yes, essentially what government intervention does is hike up the prices so that hard working poor people are unable to afford the services without the help of additional government intervention, which creates a spiral of price hikes until the service is completely unaffordable to the average person.

A long time ago, if you needed your tonsils out you went to the doctor, the operation occurred and you paid for it. It was an affordable procedure for just about anybody. Now that the government or government enabled HMOs pay for it, the provider can jack up the prices. This is because the person receiving the service does not care how much it costs because they aren't paying for it!! Now these services are completely unaffordable.


As far as government vaccinations go, ask Ron Paul, he's a doctor:

YouTube - Congressman Paul on the Recent Swine Flu Scare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB5-Y08qbjo)

[dannno]

As far as helping poor people, income taxes are a great example. If we completely got rid of the income tax in 2007, and nobody paid them, the government would have collected as much total tax revenue as they did in 1998 from corporate taxes and others. So if we had run our government on a 1998 budget, then individuals wouldn't even need to pay income tax.

Think about that, I mean, we're talking about somewhere along the lines of $10,000 per average working person that they would have extra to pay off debts, save and help other people. On top of that, income taxes are what destroy the middle class and create a bigger lower class.

One thing you should learn about while you're here is the banking scam and the Federal Reserve. That is really what is behind the destruction the poor and middle class.


Checkout this video, "The Creature From Jeckyll Island", based on the book:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6507136891691870450

[heavenlyboy34]

How is a poor, incapable sic person, going to be left to the private sector for a solution? Their only responsibility as a corporation is to make profits and please Wall St.

Since a business exists to make money, it has no incentive to destroy its customer base (in a laissez-faire, RP-esque world). See the other posts above for more info. :)

[dannno]

Oh, I get it. The OP is one of those people who thinks that Ron Paul is fascist because he doesn't want to help poor people :rolleyes: It's really too bad that he has probably helped more poor people for free through his medical practice than most other people who espouse this theory.

Look, the Federal Reserve is responsible for the fact that we have large, over-bearing corporations who leech off of our government. Fascism is not giving into the free market, fascism is about controlling people and controlling the free market. That is what the Federal Reserve does, essentially, and we've been living with it since 1913. It was the cause of the Great Depression.

Government is tyranny. If corporations are causing tyranny then no doubt there is a problem with these corporations controlling the government. We have a Constitution to protect from that, let's use it.

[A. Havnes]

*Raises hand* Speaking from experience, sort of!

I was raised in poverty, and although I'm trying to overcome it and build a better life for my family, this recession is killing me. If the government functioned on a more conseravitve level, education would be more affordable for one. I might be able to get health insurance because the competition would lower the cost. Moreover, if the income tax went bye bye, I'd be able to keep more of my own money, thus get a bit richer, maybe even middle class.

That's the short answer. I think I may have elaborated on it in my blog, but the idea is the same. Poor people keep more money, enjoy the fruits of their labor, and get richer.

As for the disabled, history has shown us time and time again that once the government gets involved with something, the quality of care goes down. Just look around and it becomes obvious.

Not the best answer, I know, but I'm in a rush and haven't had time to think up a better one!

[1000-points-of-fright]

RP has advocated allowing the private sector to handle these problems.

Actually it doesn't even have to go that far. You can still have government education, healthcare and welfare. It will just be State government. If the States didn't have to give so much money to the feds they could handle these things on their own.

Just because the federal department of education is abolished doesn't mean the California department of education has to go away. Each state is free to deal with these issues however they want... from complete communism to anarcho-capitalism. If you don't like how your state is handling things.... move.

[Working Poor]

Let me say that I think anyone who wants to learn ought to be able to get an education.A libertarian society could educate poor children. One good opportunity could be free home school programs that give small fee access to public libraries to study and submit their work also, I think private schools could and would offer scholarships. Also another possibility would be to have schools that teachers owned where they could charge small fees for each child and end up making a decent wage if their are enough students.

I think state education lotteries could also give grants to public libraries that give access to books and online test for home schooled kids to get a diploma. I also think State Education lotteries need more over sight especially if public schools and libraries are not well equipped in all states that have lotteries.

A good thing about home schooling is that the family can have a flexible schedule and it does not cost as much as public schools do now. I believe home schooling is a great way to educate a child.

Also, I think some people are not really cut out for school and one ought not be forced by the government to go to school. I think if students who do not want to learn in schools were allowed to leave it would be a lot cheaper to have public schools because discipline would less of a problem and more learning could happen in less time. It is not fair to children now who want to be there and are in classes with children who do not wish be in school and are disruptive.Perhaps these individuals could be taught certain trades by age 13 and put to work if able.

Public education as it is not all that great right now and I know many teachers who would back me up on this.

Some one said something about just look at Africa. I think if other countries would stop stripping the small nations there of it natural resources and poisoning their water and crops and leave these close to the earth people to their customs they would probably be just fine without out interventions at all.

[react1200]

1. If the departments of education, health, and welfare in general were abolished there would be less poor to need to help. Education, health, etc would cost less and be of a higher quality. This would make these services easier for the poor to afford, those who still can't afford to educate their children will simply put their children to work. All valuable learning isn't procudes in schools, children who don't go to school and go to work instead will be learning valuable skills that will give them an edge over children who do go to school, considering they will have years of experience in the work force to compete with the kids with diplomas.

I agree insurance should be affordable, does that mean it will be made affordable if the government steps out of the picture? That is a slippery slope assumption on your part. Put children to work, it that really what Ron stands for? No education for the poor? Are we to return back to the days of feaudalism, for god sakes, your assumption that work can count as the equivelant of education is ignorant. The potential of all human being should be explored, not exploited for labor!




2. When taxes are lowered donations to private charities increase. What you are suggesting is that American are such evil people that they will just sit there and watch their neighbors suffer. If Americans are such morally reprhensible people as to not care for those in need, then what hope if there of government, which would be made up of the same reprehensible individuals?

Another assumption, show me a study where taxes are lowered and donations increase. I am not suggesting that Americans are evil, that is an incompetent assumption, I am saying that there are those in power that could care less about the well being of those less fortunate.


Glass-stegeal had very little to do with our economic woes.

The IMF is a government sponsored agency, not the free market. Any trouble they cause cannot be blamed on the free market.

Enron was a case of fraud. Fraud is a crime. Just because one corporation tried to commit a crime doesn't mean all corproations are criminal. You are committing the fallacy of composition.

Everything FDR did made the depression worse. His Pecora commission was just another one of his many wastes of time and resources.

True, the collapse we have now started when Truman came into office and repealed all that FDR had done, put us into the UN, which FDR did not want since it seemed Old Eurpoe did not want to drop their colonial ways. The Pecora Comish served to expose zombie corporations and banks that were plundering the wealth of Americans, a reincarnation of John Law. That wealth, aquired fradulantly, needed to be redistributed and was via the New Deal which invested into irrigation, damns, electricity, highways, all things we enjoy now and which allowed us to sustain current population until this point of time. Glass Stegeal forbade banks from engaging in securities trading, the exact problem we are having now with banks is??? Enrons have been occuring since John Law's Missisipi Bubble, more evidence just how much of a hazard corporations can pose to the public and greater good of society. IMF is responsible for the debt of all 3rd world nations, such as Africa, India and Mexico who have had their natural resources plundered by British Coloniolist policies.




You obviously have no understanding of austrian economics whatsoever. Please visit www.mises.org and get yourself educated.

Vital infrastructure does not exist only because of the New Deal. The free market could have produced the same infrastrucure at a far more cost effective rate. Everything FDR did prolonged the Great Depression. Keynesian spending only stalls the market recovery. We didn't get out of the Great Depression until 1948 when government spending was cut 2/3 and taxes were cut 1/3

You say private capital will not invest in infratructure that is beneficial to the greater good, but if the infrastructure was truly beneficial to the great good then there would be a profit interest for entrepreneurs to invest in. No force can aggregate demand more effectively and productively than the free market. All the government can do is GUESS what should be produced, the market KNOWS what should be produced, because people are willing to pay for the products and services.

Who the hell still listens to what the Queen of England has to say?


Anyone who things corporation can build things a lot cheaper than the government is a liar, fraud or is plainly incompetent. Corporations work for profit, governments work for the greater good of society and do no search for profits (at least that was not FDR intent). Those tax cuts only helped further the defecit. What really caused the depression were the trade wars of 1907 and Hoover's Hawley Smoot Tarif act of 1930 along with Andrew Mellons trickle down economics, which centralized wealth, and the Fordney McCumber Tarif act of 1922. Queen still has a lot to say due to the Anglo Dutch monetary system we are under.


The system is bankrupt due to the Federal Reserve's manipulation of the money supply which results in the vicious boom-bust cycle which the great austrian economist FA Hayek won the nobel prize for proving. "Credit default swaps" are merely a symptom of the crisis, not the cause, which is artifically lowered interest rates.

Hayek was flawed in his analysis by saying Nazism came to be due to socialist and colectavist ideas from Pre WW1. It came to be due to British financiers who instigated WW1, hit Germany with the Versailles treaty and then bankrolled a fascist dictator such as the one American Libery League supporters wanted to install when they tried to bribe General Butler. You can view this on your tube.


In order to have a sustainable economy we have to let the free market work, open our markets, cut taxes, and stop bailing out failed enterprises.

You want nuclear power? Its the government that wont let private firms from creating one. Nucelar plants are regulated to the point that the start up costs are in the tens of millions, and then they are banned from being created altogether. The free market would love a transition to nuclear power, its your precious government that is in the way.

i agree only its to late to rely on private entities to build these. Gov should get the hell out of the way and these brainwashed greenies need to realize that carbon as the cause of global warming is a hoax stemming from British policy.



Because people wont intervene in wars that are occuring thousands of miles away you believe they wont help their neighbor? Funny, we got along fine for thousands of years without welfare, what makes you think we depend on it now? If welfare was abolished all those resources would be dumped on the free market which would use them far more efficiently to create jobs, lower pirces, innovate products, and raise wages. All of those functions would greatly help the poor far more than any government handout.

So basicaly African people should die even though it was US and British colonial policies that got them into their mess? This type of thinking is backwards since it does nothing but create poverty which will end up creating health epedemics, terrorism and crime. We did not get along fine without welfare for thousands of years, do some history research. I am for worker programs for people on welfare, any able body receiving it should be put to work.

[react1200]

The church, his neighbors and his family are good choices. That is what we depended on before they gave us socialized welfare,

If this is truly the policy, then this is a step back to the dark age. How are any of the entities you mentioned going to provide care to someone with a transmitable disease or is badly hurt. What if you came down with a disease, were unable to work, you lose your insurance and had your priest or minister? You would be out of luck, you would probably want to shoot yourself.

[Jeremy]

How is a poor, incapable sic person, going to be left to the private sector for a solution? Their only responsibility as a corporation is to make profits and please Wall St.

You've never heard of charity????

[react1200]

Oh, I get it. The OP is one of those people who thinks that Ron Paul is fascist because he doesn't want to help poor people :rolleyes: It's really too bad that he has probably helped more poor people for free through his medical practice than most other people who espouse this theory.

Look, the Federal Reserve is responsible for the fact that we have large, over-bearing corporations who leech off of our government. Fascism is not giving into the free market, fascism is about controlling people and controlling the free market. That is what the Federal Reserve does, essentially, and we've been living with it since 1913. It was the cause of the Great Depression.

Government is tyranny. If corporations are causing tyranny then no doubt there is a problem with these corporations controlling the government. We have a Constitution to protect from that, let's use it.

Comendable that he helped people for free, but we can't expect everyone to act accordingly. Controlling the money supply is fascism, I give credit to Ron and Peter for bringing it to light, but the austerity measures they want to implement would only put us back into the dark age. Government is only tyranny under present condition, we need to put the system through bankruptcy, invest in a sustainable future a la FDR, and invest into high speed rail, desalination and nuclear power. This would increase production capacity and costs down. Larouche is a good source of information.

[react1200]

You've never heard of charity????

are you kidding, we are talking about global populations who are not able to eat right now because of green cap and trade talks. Charity to support a world population, that is an incompetent solution, Im sorry, it is.

[Jeremy]

are you kidding, we are talking about global populations who are not able to eat right now because of green cap and trade talks. Charity to support a world population, that is an incompetent solution, Im sorry, it is.

Then you are a fool. Americans have 40% of their income taken from government. This money doesn't help anybody. 40% more money would be a good boost to charity. I already give to charity, do you?

By the way, your response didn't make any sense. If I am saying that government is the problem, why are you talking about it not working because of government?

[react1200]

Actually it doesn't even have to go that far. You can still have government education, healthcare and welfare. It will just be State government. If the States didn't have to give so much money to the feds they could handle these things on their own.

Just because the federal department of education is abolished doesn't mean the California department of education has to go away. Each state is free to deal with these issues however they want... from complete communism to anarcho-capitalism. If you don't like how your state is handling things.... move.

This is what I thought and what are we seeing in California. Cuts to education by Arnie. Not to say that education system is okay. But the problems stem deeper than education, more cultural. Look at countries, China, India and Japan, were media is not consumed nor valued as it is in the states. Countires where education is valued.

[Jeremy]

If this is truly the policy, then this is a step back to the dark age. How are any of the entities you mentioned going to provide care to someone with a transmitable disease or is badly hurt. What if you came down with a disease, were unable to work, you lose your insurance and had your priest or minister? You would be out of luck, you would probably want to shoot yourself.

You have little knowledge of how the world works. You are like a politician in this way because you are using your ignorance to come up with wrong ideas.

All big government did was take away from these people. It took away from the medical industry with regulation. It took away from charity with high taxation. It created the poverty.

[Athan]

How is a poor, incapable sic person, going to be left to the private sector for a solution? Their only responsibility as a corporation is to make profits and please Wall St.

Regarding that, Ron supports honest money. Meaning the money you make will hold real value and allow poor folks (like me) to be able to actually afford shit like hospital bills again if they can at least work and save.

Now that the money is devalued through inflation as it is and the government sponsors the medical industry which loves to charge government for 500 dollars in Tylenol, poor people can no longer afford hospital bills reaching into the 20,000's for child birth and possible c-section birth. We need health insurance which we can't damned afford either.

STOP STEALING FROM US WITH YOUR DAMNED GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS!! PLEASE! I CAN'T VISIT THE DOCTOR IF I GET SWINE FLU!! I'LL BE IN SERIOUS DEBT!

[ClayTrainor]

This is what I thought and what are we seeing in California. Cuts to education by Arnie. Not to say that education system is okay. But the problems stem deeper than education, more cultural. Look at countries, China, India and Japan, were media is not consumed nor valued as it is in the states. Countires where education is valued.

I live in Canada, and let me tell you first hand... If you want slow, sub-par service, where the doctor is more accountable to the government than he is to you, than keep promoting socialized health care.

Don't trust anyone who tells you how wonderful Canada's health care system is. It's sorta true in some ways, but there are some MASSIVE flaws being ignored when guys like Michael Moore advertise our system. It's true our system is in slightly better shape than yours, and almost every individual in Canada is able to receive health care, with no financial requirements. However, There's no way you Americans can afford a Health Care system like us Canadians have, because we aren't managing a multi-trillion dollar foreign policy, amongst other pet projects like you guys are. Start getting used to poverty if you guys go on the single-payer health system, with the shape your economy is already in.

More government is not a solution to any of the serious problems in America, and it's a historical mistake to think otherwise. It's also a mistake to blame the free-market for the problems in the American system, since the health care system hasn't been anything close to a free-market in decades.


I think your ultimate flaw is, you think government is a force for good, to do wonderful and charitable things but, you ignore how corrupt it becomes when individuals get their hands on such massive financial power that they haven't earned legally. In fact, they pretty much have to steal it by making it "The law", and throwing you in jail if you refuse to pay. Creating a government monopoly will only make things much, much worse. You say you dont' like greed, well then, you should subject every greedy person to Free-market competition. In the free-market, you have to compete for customers $$$, you don't get to charge whatever you want because your competitors will kick your ass and steal your customers. If you create a government monopoly, who's gonna stop them from charging whatever they want? You think you can vote yourself better prices? There is no such thing as Free health care, believe me, you should've seen the check i had to write to my government last month for income tax :mad:

Watch John Stossel's "Sick in America", for a good take on the health care system.

Here's part 1 to get you started :)

YouTube - John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 1 (of 6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I)

[ClayTrainor]

are you kidding, we are talking about global populations who are not able to eat right now because of green cap and trade talks. Charity to support a world population, that is an incompetent solution, Im sorry, it is.

First of all, it's time America starts worrying about it's own constituents rather than solving the worlds problems. Government will not solve world hunger for you, sorry. You can't just hand a bunch of politicians trillions of dollars, and expect them to do the right thing. You can't expect any human to do the right thing with that kind of power. You know where the answer lies to world hunger? In you and me. Yup, sorry to tell you this. If you truly want to end world hunger, it requires good people like yourself to get off the internet and do something about it. Go start a business that employs people in a poor country. Go travel to a country where people are starving, and help them find food, or grow gardens... something like that. That's how you solve world hunger, by doing something about it, not by begging your government to do it for you.

The problem is, there isn't enough capitalism in the countries that are starving. If you send in capitalists, who know how to generate profits, they could employ workers and generate wealth for those countries.

We need more capitalism in this world, not less of it

Rule of Law + Free Market = All You need :cool:

[JaylieWoW]

If Ron's austerity cuts to education and health were implemented, who would help the poor?

I believe your answer to this question lies in understanding money changing hands and I must say your question is based on a false premise.

Each hand that touches the money, lessens the amount available for the actual ACTION of educating and providing health care for those less fortunate. Further, what is taught in schools might actually have more relevance for individual communities if the money for dispensing such education were kept closer to home. Tell me, do you think you would have a better chance of voicing your complaints against education by petitioning the federal government or petitioning your local Mayor or committee in charge of education?

Yes, Ron wants to cut spending on education and health, but his desire is to do so at the FEDERAL level. State, county and local municipalities should decide for themselves how to best approach the education of those within their boundaries. If local governments were allowed to keep more of their own money within their immediate constituency, thus minimizing the hands through which such money passes, wouldn't it stand to reason there would be more available to spend and that such money would be spent more efficiently with better results?

I believe the same would hold true for health care as well. Further, I don't believe we need to see a full fledged "certified" doctor every time we get the sniffles. I think the government, the DEA and the FDA are far too involved in the doctor/patient relationship and as a result THOUSANDS of patients do not get the care they would seek for themselves. MILLIONS (more likely BILLIONS) are spent each year on test procedures that doctors perform that are not needed. If that money were being spent directly by the patient, don't you think you would question whether you needed a certain procedure or not? Wouldn't you be more apt to research proven approaches on your own? It's always easier to look the other way when it is someone else's money you're spending.

Another good indicator of how regulations, health insurance and the like drive UP prices is to consider the cost of plastic surgery and other "vanity" or not-medically necessary procedures people seek. How is it that in the medical community, new innovations and technology are driving UP the prices of necessary medical care (life saving) while the same such innovations are driving DOWN the prices of unnecessary medical procedures? Plastic surgery is not something just for the very wealthy any longer.


Who would vaccinate them in order to stop pandemics? We know capitalism cannot function without a lower class. Who will look after them to make sure they are able to educate/sustain themselves?


Why is the FEDERAL government uniquely more qualified to handle these things rather than your local government? Actually, it is even more correct to ask why are YOU not capable of taking care of yourself? Do you somehow feel closer to someone thousands of miles away than you do someone who might even live in your same neighborhood and thus be more approachable?

You are far less likely to make an impact at the federal level but far more likely to make an impact at the local level. A good example would be problems within the shrimping industry being a concern at the local level in Texas whereas the cheese maker in Wisconsin is not likely to give a hill of beans about shrimping in Texas when he's got some issues dealing with cheese making in Wisconsin. (Well, other than maybe the shrimper likes a bit of cheddar with his shrimp & grits and the cheese maker might like a bit of shrimp from time to time). How much money do you think each of these industries waste on getting support (lobbying) from the FEDERAL government? Wouldn't that be money better spent on solving their own problems without the heavy hand of government?


Government is not inherently corrupt if properly regulated

To see the proper regulation of government, you should really look up the United States Constitution. Apparently us citizens forgot about the "eternal vigilance" warning when we got the government we got.


The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. ~Thomas Jefferson


Anyone who thinks privatizing public infrastructure such as utilities only needs to look at Enron to see what these corporations are capable of.

You should look up the history of ENRON sometime and rather than scrutinizing the "cooking of the books" that brought them down, dig a little deeper and find out how exactly ENRON was able to achieve so much success. While you're looking into this be sure to look up the term "Corporatism". It is wholly and completely opposite of "Free-market" & "Capitalism".


Most of our current vital infrastructure only exists because of the New Deal (electricity, damns, super highways, etc.) so how can we say FDR was evil

Inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs brought us all these things. New Deal or no New Deal we would still have them now. However, SUBSIDIES to these very industries may just have something to do with why we are STILL stuck with these technologies. These very industries lobby the government heavily to stifle innovations by making regulations stiff and economically unaffordable for the "little guy" who just might have a better idea.


My question to Ron, how do his policies address the issues people living in extreme poverty, the disabled, the handicapped, the sick? Also, volunteerism will only work IF people actually decide to intervene, judging from our culture, and what is happening in Africa, we wont.

The bolded portion is obviously your opinion but I'm wondering where you came by such opinion? Are you aware that Americans give more money to charity (yes, primarily from individuals) than any other nation in the world? Here's an article you might want to read so you can rethink your last statement. Americans give record $295B to charity... (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm)

In closing, I'm quite convinced you won't do your own research into these matters. The answers I've given you to your questions are the simple quick answers, but if you did your own research you might find yourself reaching new conclusions you never considered. The problem lies in asking a simple question and attempting to give a simple answer. Usually whenever we do this we fail to see those things hiding beneath the surface. This results in not only a failure to ask the right questions but also a failure to find better answers.

[GunnyFreedom]

How is a poor, incapable sic person, going to be left to the private sector for a solution? Their only responsibility as a corporation is to make profits and please Wall St.

a poor, incapable, sick person will be more able to turn to the community for help than they are right now. Most hospitals already have free clinics and not because the State tells them to.

If the Hospitals were deregulated to the point where they would no longer have to hold millions upon millions of dollars in insurance against the free clinics, then they could provide even MORE services to the poor.

[sratiug]

How is a poor, incapable sic person, going to be left to the private sector for a solution? Their only responsibility as a corporation is to make profits and please Wall St.

Corporations are government created by state charter. There are no federal corporations as the constitution does not give congress power to grant corporate charters. Corporate charters granted by the King of England greatly contributed to the Revolution being fought. State corporations were never intended to run wild without strict regulation from the state that chartered them. They were originally chartered only for projects deemed beneficial by the state legislature for limited durations on good behavior.

Regulation of state corporations is a state function.

[Danke]

Corporations are government created by state charter. There are no federal corporations as the constitution does not give congress power to grant corporate charters.

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002

§ 3002. Definitions

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

[jmlfod87]

I agree insurance should be affordable, does that mean it will be made affordable if the government steps out of the picture? That is a slippery slope assumption on your part. Put children to work, it that really what Ron stands for? No education for the poor? Are we to return back to the days of feaudalism, for god sakes, your assumption that work can count as the equivelant of education is ignorant. The potential of all human being should be explored, not exploited for labor!

I dont assume that work can count as education,, work DOES count as educcation. When people are employed they are learning essential skills.

Again, with public education abolished, education would cost less and be of higher quality. The vast majority of people will be MORE educated because of it. There would also be charities that would offer scholarships for the poor. Those left over would seek employment so that they can compete in the work force with the advantage of experience to compare with the wealthier children's education background.





[
I]Another assumption, show me a study where taxes are lowered and donations increase. I am not suggesting that Americans are evil, that is an incompetent assumption, I am saying that there are those in power that could care less about the well being of those less fortunate.[/I]

Those in power are the government. In the free market there is no power, power is the threat of force.

If citizens always donate 5% of their income to charities, and there income increases due to tax breaks, charitable donations would obviously increase. What you are assuming is that increased income would lead to a LOWER percentage of charitable donations per household. You tell me the study that shows the MORE people earn, the LESS they donate to charity?




True, the collapse we have now started when Truman came into office and repealed all that FDR had done, put us into the UN, which FDR did not want since it seemed Old Eurpoe did not want to drop their colonial ways. The Pecora Comish served to expose zombie corporations and banks that were plundering the wealth of Americans, a reincarnation of John Law. That wealth, aquired fradulantly, needed to be redistributed and was via the New Deal which invested into irrigation, damns, electricity, highways, all things we enjoy now and which allowed us to sustain current population until this point of time. Glass Stegeal forbade banks from engaging in securities trading, the exact problem we are having now with banks is??? Enrons have been occuring since John Law's Missisipi Bubble, more evidence just how much of a hazard corporations can pose to the public and greater good of society. IMF is responsible for the debt of all 3rd world nations, such as Africa, India and Mexico who have had their natural resources plundered by British Coloniolist policies.


The collapse we have now didnt start with Truman. It started witht he collapse of the Bretton Woods system.

You are absolutely ingornant of economics if you think government-funded products and services are produced more efficiently that privately-funded goods and services. All the resources builty by FDR: irrigation, dams, electricity, and highways dried up the private sector when it needed capital most in order to recover. This is why the Great Depression didn't end until the budget and taxes were finally cut AFTER WW2.

Everything FDR built could have built more efficiently on the free market. The government is not more productive than free enterprise, if you truly believe this you have never read any sane economics.





[
I]Anyone who things corporation can build things a lot cheaper than the government is a liar, fraud or is plainly incompetent. Corporations work for profit, governments work for the greater good of society and do no search for profits (at least that was not FDR intent).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow www.mises.org. Governments work for the greater good of society? How can they work for the greater good of society when they have no competition to keep them accountable and no profit-motive to drive them to work harder?

Every penny corporations acquire, they acquire because they have provided a product of higher quality and less expense then their competitor. Everything penny the government acquires is through coercive taxation. Governments have no incentive to work harder because they get paid the same no matter what. Corporations and forced to work hard to stay in business. If they do a bad job they go out of business. If the government does a bad job it complains that it was unde-funded and exploits their failure as a reason to raise taxes further.

The government possesses a monopoly in every form of production it engages in. If you knoew anything about economics you would understand that monopolies are less productive then competitive industries.



Those tax cuts only helped further the defecit. What really caused the depression were the trade wars of 1907 and Hoover's Hawley Smoot Tarif act of 1930 along with Andrew Mellons trickle down economics, which centralized wealth, and the Fordney McCumber Tarif act of 1922. Queen still has a lot to say due to the Anglo Dutch monetary system we are under.[/I]

www.mises.org Read Rothbard's America's Great Depression. The BUDGET cuts were LARGER then the TAX cuts. Truman helps pay DOWN the deficit. It was FDR that created the massive deficit with his keynesian spending spree that kept our economy in the gutter.

The only form of centralized wealth is government wealth, which it forsibly steals from its citizens.



Hayek was flawed in his analysis by saying Nazism came to be due to socialist and colectavist ideas from Pre WW1. It came to be due to British financiers who instigated WW1, hit Germany with the Versailles treaty and then bankrolled a fascist dictator such as the one American Libery League supporters wanted to install when they tried to bribe General Butler. You can view this on your tube.

Free maektes died in almost all countries post-ww1, including your beloved Great Britain. Hayek was not wrong that a sollectvist-socialist ideology was permeating all across the globe destroying individualism and libertarian ideology.

You are making post hoc fallacy to uggest british financiers could turn so much of the world's population to fascism, nazism, and socialism (all forms of big government authoritarian regimes). Hitler, Mussolini, and the like were popular because he bashed capitalism, and they wouldn't have gotten into power without it. While I agree WW1 and Versailles had much to do with the fate of Germany that led toi Hitler, it was the socialist Wilson's intervention that created that treaty. Before the US entered Germany had signed a peace treaty with Russia and German diplomats were in peace talks with British and French diplomats. Had Wilson, and his "American exceptionalism" ideology, not intervened Versailles would have never happened like it did and there would have been no desire of vengenance from the Germans. Wilson's imperialism and the desire to make the world in his image brought about the conditions in the Versailles treaty.




[I]i agree only its to late to rely on private entities to build these.[/quote]

Its never too late for private enterprise. End the government bans and cut out the cost-prohibitive regulations and you will see nuclear plants sprout up like roses all over the country




So basicaly African people should die even though it was US and British colonial policies that got them into their mess? This type of thinking is backwards since it does nothing but create poverty which will end up creating health epedemics, terrorism and crime. We did not get along fine without welfare for thousands of years, do some history research. I am for worker programs for people on welfare, any able body receiving it should be put to work.

If you really wanted to help African countries you would cut off aid immediately. Foreign aid has been preventing Africa from developing for decades. Read Dambisa Moyo's book "Dead Aid" http://www.dambisamoyo.com/deadaid.html

If you really wanted Africa to develop you would LEND money to African BUSINESSESMAN, as Ms. Moyo suggests. Giving people food destroys the African food industry and so on and so forth. Throwing money is a short term solution that destroys long term prospects for growth.

If we did not get along fine without welfare since the founding of America, however did we get all the way to the 1930s? It was the pre-welfare era that our economy had the largest growth rates. This means EVERYONE's standard of living was increasing the most under an economic system that did not have welfare.

We are in a recession (soon to be inflationary depression) today somewhat because of all the debt-financed payoffs to social security.

"Social Security faces an unfunded liability of $10.4 trillion.
Medicare's unfunded liability is $61.6 trillion - six times greater than Social Security's.
The prescription drug benefit alone faces a funding gap of $16.6 trillion - more than 50 percent greater than Social Security's.
By 2020, the combined deficits in these programs will consume more than one-fourth of all federal income taxes.
By 2030, about the midpoint of the baby boomer retirement years, deficits in the two programs will consume more than half of all federal incomes taxes.
By 2050, when today's college students will reach retirement age, Social Security and Medicare will require more than three- fourths of all income taxes just to pay benefits currently promised. "http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002013.html

Any able body receiving welfare will work LESS then they have to. If you are jumping across rooftops, are you going to try harder to make it acrossif you know thereis a net to catch you, or if you think you'll die if you dont make it? If your answer isn't the latter then there is no point talking to you/ Welfare rewards non-work and punishes work.

Love welfare? Read: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger94.html

[ClayTrainor]

Woops, bad post, my bad

[Todd]

Comendable that he helped people for free, but we can't expect everyone to act accordingly. Controlling the money supply is fascism, I give credit to Ron and Peter for bringing it to light, but the austerity measures they want to implement would only put us back into the dark age. Government is only tyranny under present condition, we need to put the system through bankruptcy, invest in a sustainable future a la FDR, and invest into high speed rail, desalination and nuclear power. This would increase production capacity and costs down. Larouche is a good source of information.

FDR was the POTUS godfather of implementing quasi fascism. Why on earth would he be a good model? :confused:


How is a poor, incapable sic person, going to be left to the private sector for a solution? Their only responsibility as a corporation is to make profits and please Wall St.

Ever hear of the concept of pro bono? My wife does it all the time in her profession. Doctors used to practice it more often. Now get the government off their backs and I have a theory you'd see that come back into fashion.

[dannno]

Comendable that he helped people for free, but we can't expect everyone to act accordingly. Controlling the money supply is fascism, I give credit to Ron and Peter for bringing it to light, but the austerity measures they want to implement would only put us back into the dark age. Government is only tyranny under present condition, we need to put the system through bankruptcy, invest in a sustainable future a la FDR, and invest into high speed rail, desalination and nuclear power. This would increase production capacity and costs down. Larouche is a good source of information.

No, you don't understand, the money supply IS BEING CONTROLLED. Ron wants to end that so that corporations cannot influence politicians to manipulate the money supply.

One day after doing some more research you are going to realize that what we are advocating is the opposite of fascism, it is complete freedom and liberty for the individual which is best for society as a whole. Your solutions for making society better make it function worse, and so there are less resources and people on the bottom are always going to get screwed. Your way doesn't work. I spent years listening to Noam Chomsky and agreeing with him on many points beyond foreign policy including government intervention in the case for helping society in certain ways, but I've completely dropped that train of thought as I've come to find out it isn't viable and it is highly destructive.

You said that government can provide cheaper services than corporations, but that is astoundingly wrong. The government steals money from people to run their inefficient operations and then gives the consumer of their operations a discount. This is at the expense of society as a whole. It brings everybody down, and it's the people on the BOTTOM who suffer the most from this.

[dannno]

are you kidding, we are talking about global populations who are not able to eat right now because of green cap and trade talks. Charity to support a world population, that is an incompetent solution, Im sorry, it is.

No, giving government aid money to these countries is the incompetent solution. It causes them to become dependent on aid money rather than setting up an infrastructure or a social network where they can survive. The countries in Africa that have received the most aid money over the years are worse off as a whole, and worse off in comparison to countries that received less aid money or did not receive any. Loans are considered aid and that goes back to what you said about the IMF. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. When you create government welfare programs or give aid money to starving countries, you get more poor people and more starving people.

On top of that, when a rich country gives a poor country aid money, there are always strings attached. That means that the rich country inevitably gets some sort of power over the poor country. While initially it may work out ok, this power generally becomes misused in the near term or in the long term to influence the poor country to give up it's resources or land to benefit the global corporations.

The bottom line is these people would be much better off if we left them alone, and traded goods with them if they want to.

You keep talking about feudalism, but we are essentially feudal serfs to the banks with these ridiculous taxes that go towards nothing but paying interest on our national debt. Banks create money out of thin air to loan, then we pay them back with our tax money? C'mon, you've gotta see that the scam is being played on first and third world countries. I mean, sure, we get the benefits of the raping and pillaging of other countries that occurs through the global corporations, but we are still being sucked dry by the banks. We have no wealth, all we have is a bunch of plastic and electronic junk from china which will break within the next year or two or three.

Back to the feudal serf issue, there were plenty of great civilizations in the past that were not based on overlords. The Native Americans in North America were a great example. They had a big trading economy and used money. This was not well documented and the economy was destroyed when Americans moved west. The American colonies are another great example of how people and economies can flourish with freedom.

Again, I highly urge you to learn about our money supply and watch "The Creature From Jeckyll Island" that I posted earlier. Just because the global corporations have stolen us a bunch of treasure doesn't mean we aren't slaves. What will happen when we don't have third world country slaves to depend on? The US will be sunk. That is slavery. Freedom would allow us to build self more localized, self sufficient societies.

[react1200]

Then you are a fool. Americans have 40% of their income taken from government. This money doesn't help anybody. 40% more money would be a good boost to charity. I already give to charity, do you?

By the way, your response didn't make any sense. If I am saying that government is the problem, why are you talking about it not working because of government?

Current government is the problem, need Pecora commission to weed out the corrupt bankers/finaciers as FDR did. Hoover did plenty, but did not root out the evil. 40% will go to hyperinflation if investment is not made into the physical economy to boost production. Nuclear, desalination and world wide high speed rail is a good place to start. What a moral play, "give to charity", listen bud, charities have been around forever, it does not increase a nations capacity to produce not does it solve the social issues we are facing. Pandemics will become the norm if healthcare is not reformed for the greater good of society and not Wall St.

[dannno]

Current government is the problem, need Pecora commission to weed out the corrupt bankers/finaciers as FDR did. Hoover did plenty, but did not root out the evil. 40% will go to hyperinflation if investment is not made into the physical economy to boost production. Nuclear, desalination and world wide high speed rail is a good place to start. What a moral play, "give to charity", listen bud, charities have been around forever, it does not increase a nations capacity to produce not does it solve the social issues we are facing. Pandemics will become the norm if healthcare is not reformed for the greater good of society and not Wall St.

I hate to say it, but FDR was a huge part of the banking establishment. What you read about him are myths created by the bankers to make their puppets appear to be fighting the financiers and bankers.



Banker Plot to Remove FDR was a Ruse
by Henry Makow Ph.D. – July 27, 2007

The story that Wall Street bankers planned to overthrow FDR in 1933 still makes the rounds in 2007.

Last week, the BBC named "Dubya's" grandfather, Prescott Bush as one of the conspirators.

Clearly, the Illuminati bankers staged the "planned coup" to give FDR credibility as Wall Street's nemesis. As I will show, they routinely used such tricks to build up their Presidential puppet.

The NWO apparently still considers Roosevelt and his model of Big Government as a propaganda asset. Fascism takes the form of socialism, as we have seen with Communism and Nazism.

The conspirators (members of the "American Liberty League") approached retired Major General Smedley Butler to use 500,000 veterans to remove FDR and become a Mussolini-like figure himself.

Smedley Butler was the LAST man you would ask if you were serious about such a coup. However, if you wanted someone to expose your coup ( as he did; thought it "smacked of treason,") Butler was the "go-to" person.

The most decorated Marine in history; Gen. Smedley Butler recently had been forced to resign by Herbert Hoover for calling Mussolini a "mad dog" and warning that his fascist cohorts "were about to break loose in Europe." Butler refused to retract his remarks and thus became a national hero overnight.

Nor was Butler fond of Wall Street, touring the nation with a speech stating that the bankers used the US army as "gangsters for capitalism" -- thugs and debt collectors:

"Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints," Butler said. "The best he could do was .. operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." ("War is a Racket" 1933)

"There was definitely something crazy about the whole affair," remarked Curt Gentry. "Butler who had gained prominence for speaking out /against fascism/, being asked to become an American Duce." ("J. Edgar Hoover" p.203)

Nevertheless, Gentry and most other historians accepted the tale, indicating that they function as highly paid flacks.

The story received its widest currency in Jules Archer's book "The Plot to Seize the White House" (1973). Judging from Archer's other works, he is either the Illuminati's best propagandist or biggest dupe (or both.)

His other subjects include such "defenders of the people" as: Trotsky, Mao Tse Tung; Chou En Lai; and Ho Chi Minh. He has also penned books about such elite-sponsored movements as feminism, civil rights and environmentalism.

WHO WAS FDR?

For the answer, we are indebted to a book by a courageous honest, public-spirited New York doctor, Emmanuel Josephson: "The Strange Death of Franklin D. Roosevelt" (1948).

FDR was the scion of two Illuminati families, the Delanos and the Roosevelts. He was related to a dozen US Presidents: four on the Roosevelt side and eight on the Delano side. He was a third cousin of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth.

These families have some Jewish antecedents but they also have Dutch, German, Swedish and principally English blood. FDR's mother's father, Warren Delano made a sizable fortune in the opium trade. His father James Roosevelt was Vice President of a railway and director of several companies.

FDR was a spoiled brat who could always change the rules to suit his whims. He was tutored privately, and failed law school but allowed to enter the bar anyway. He never held a real job. In the 1920's, he helped float some stock market scams. As Governor and later President, he was extremely suggestible, evasive and shifty. Louis Howe created his public persona and did his thinking for him. He was FDR's "alter and wiser ego." (102)

FDR had a small army of speech writers and sometimes there were screw-ups. For his Democratic nomination acceptance in 1932, he was handed two speeches with diametrically opposed views and read them both. (157)

After his attack of encephalomyelitis, the Rockefellers gave him a health spa at Warm Springs, Georgia. They subsequently funneled millions of dollars to FDR in the guise of contributions to his "foundation" to help the sick. (Dr. Josephson found that the institution did not accept charity cases and didn't issue financial statements.) (118-ff)

In Josephson's words, "Roosevelt was magnificently bribed to run for office. By the end of 1930, some $700,000 was poured into the coffers of the Foundation ...[FDR] was the pathetic puppet of conspirators scheming the destruction of democracy and the establishment of an American monarchy." (95, 124)

In return under FDR, the US Treasury spent hundreds of millions bribing Saudi King Ibn Saud and building oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia to benefit Standard Oil. (262-263)

Josephson said the basic doctrines of the Rockefeller Empire are "feudalistic monarchic government" ... "monopoly of every necessity of life and of national existence, and absolute dictatorship..." (86-87)

The rich must "divide and rule": " The people must be dealt with not as Americans but as minorities set at each other's throats, labor vs. Capital, Black vs. White, Catholic vs. protestant, Christian vs. Jew for e.g." (87) He could have added male vs. female and gay vs. straight.

FEIGNED OPPOSITION FROM WALL STREET

Rich degenerate inbreds running for President naturally pretend to defend the public good. Naturally their banker-sponsors are willing to feign displeasure and opposition.

FDR learned the game from his cousin Theodore Roosevelt who pretended to be a "trust buster," while remaining a creation of the trusts.

The contributors to FDR's 1932 campaign include a Who's Who of the US business elite, the same people who supposedly tried to overthrow him a year later: Hearst, Rockefeller, Morgan, Baruch, Du Pont, Astor.

In 1933, a group of "publicity men" advised that Fascism was becoming unpopular in America and FDR could score points by opposing the Nazis. "They suggested that Hearst and his publications launch a sham attack on Roosevelt and at the same time pretend to support Nazism and Fascism, thus throwing the Anti-Nazis and Anti-Fascists in the Roosevelt camp." (167)

"As the perverters of public opinion expected, the gullible public raged at Hearst and flocked to the standards of Roosevelt, blind to the fact that he was giving them another of the same brand of dictatorship." (167)

The antagonism was an utter sham. Hearst employed FDR's son Elliot, and his daughter and her husband! Similarly the public enmity of the munitions manufacturing Duponts was also a sham. Ethel Dupont married FDR Jr. !

"The Liberty League was then set up for the ostensible purpose of attacking Roosevelt and fighting his re-election. This served to throw the entire pacifist vote into Roosevelt's camp and helped reassure his re-election." (169)

Clearly the "Fascist Coup" was another clever ploy invented by the "publicity men."

CONCLUSION

Curtis Dall was a banker and FDR's son-in-law. He portrays the President not as a leader but as a "quarterback" with little actual power. The "coaching staff" consisted of a coterie of handlers ("advisers" like Louis Howe, Bernard Baruch and Harry Hopkins) who represented the international banking cartel. For Dall, FDR ultimately was a traitor manipulated by "World Money" and motivated by conceit and personal ambition.

The 1933 Fascist Coup is indicative of the trouble the elite takes to manipulate the public. After FDR, no President (until George W. Bush) did more to take America down the road to tyranny.

Today we have to take attacks on Bush with a grain of salt. They are designed to drive the public into the open arms of Illuminati puppets Hilary Clinton or Barak Obama. In fact, much of the conflict in the world today may be generated and controlled by the Illuminati central bankers.


http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6933

[react1200]

You have little knowledge of how the world works. You are like a politician in this way because you are using your ignorance to come up with wrong ideas.

All big government did was take away from these people. It took away from the medical industry with regulation. It took away from charity with high taxation. It created the poverty.

Current government did, this breakdown started to occur after Truman took office and the de-industrialization commenced. He created the red scare which hampered trade with Russia, created the CIA to instigate wars abroad and spy on the homeland, increased defense spending, got us into the Vietnam (tho it blew up in the 60s), and Korean war and every president after that, with the exception of JFK, followed these policies of allowing corporation to plunder the American public. The problem with government is collusion with Wall St, not government as an entity.

[react1200]

First of all, it's time America starts worrying about it's own constituents rather than solving the worlds problems. Government will not solve world hunger for you, sorry. You can't just hand a bunch of politicians trillions of dollars, and expect them to do the right thing. You can't expect any human to do the right thing with that kind of power. You know where the answer lies to world hunger? In you and me. Yup, sorry to tell you this. If you truly want to end world hunger, it requires good people like yourself to get off the internet and do something about it. Go start a business that employs people in a poor country. Go travel to a country where people are starving, and help them find food, or grow gardens... something like that. That's how you solve world hunger, by doing something about it, not by begging your government to do it for you.

The problem is, there isn't enough capitalism in the countries that are starving. If you send in capitalists, who know how to generate profits, they could employ workers and generate wealth for those countries.

We need more capitalism in this world, not less of it

Rule of Law + Free Market = All You need :cool:

The problem is the Anglo Dutch Monetary system. The banks, which a part of this system, keeps 3rd world nations disorganized, in debt and unable to take care of themselves. This has been British policy since the EAST INDIA COMPANY of which, which inspired John Law to prey on the French which resulted in the French Revolution. These policies puts other nations at risk and need to be addressed.

[react1200]

No, you don't understand, the money supply IS BEING CONTROLLED. Ron wants to end that so that corporations cannot influence politicians to manipulate the money supply.

One day after doing some more research you are going to realize that what we are advocating is the opposite of fascism, it is complete freedom and liberty for the individual which is best for society as a whole. Your solutions for making society better make it function worse, and so there are less resources and people on the bottom are always going to get screwed. Your way doesn't work. I spent years listening to Noam Chomsky and agreeing with him on many points beyond foreign policy including government intervention in the case for helping society in certain ways, but I've completely dropped that train of thought as I've come to find out it isn't viable and it is highly destructive.

You said that government can provide cheaper services than corporations, but that is astoundingly wrong. The government steals money from people to run their inefficient operations and then gives the consumer of their operations a discount. This is at the expense of society as a whole. It brings everybody down, and it's the people on the BOTTOM who suffer the most from this.

Government does not run operations, FDR never ran an operation, they created a Hamiltonian style bank to provide credit for these projects. Money supply IS being manipulated, debased currently. The ultimate problem lies in the de-industrialization of America, in search of cheaper labor. The British oligarchs, whom are in control of this, want to destroy America, that has been their policy since the American Revolution.

[dannno]

Current government did, this breakdown started to occur after Truman took office and the de-industrialization commenced. He created the red scare which hampered trade with Russia, created the CIA to instigate wars abroad and spy on the homeland, increased defense spending, got us into the Vietnam (tho it blew up in the 60s), and Korean war and every president after that, with the exception of JFK, followed these policies of allowing corporation to plunder the American public.

You know, Ron Paul is against all of these things too. He is against the American empire and wants to bring our troops home from the 135 countries where are troops are stationed.





The problem with government is collusion with Wall St, not government as an entity.


I agree, and you will find that others here agree with you as well.

That is the purpose of creating a small, limited constitutional government. That is what we advocate here. If you allow anything else, then the special interests WILL come in and take control of said government. That is why we have the constitution. It outlines what the Federal Government is allowed to do. The states and local governments can then take on other issues, such as welfare, if they choose. Then people can decide if they want to live in a state that has social programs to fall back on, or if they want lower taxes. They can live in a state that allows abortions or they can live in one that says the life of an unborn child is still life (both sides of the debate have merit). You can live in a state that recognizes gay marriage, or you can live in a state that doesn't recognize any marriages because it is a religious issue and has nothing to do with the government... or a state that only recognizes one type of marriage.. but since people can move freely throughout our country this would give them CHOICES. The best states that make the best choices will succeed to the highest degree, and other states will follow their example.

If you advocate an honest monetary policy, then the banks cannot hijack the financial system. They hijack the financial system by being allowed to create money for governments and also by controlling interest rates and leveraging. If you don't allow leveraging, you let the market set the interest rate and have government create money instead of banks, then the banks and corporations cannot rule a nation financially.

[react1200]

No, giving government aid money to these countries is the incompetent solution. It causes them to become dependent on aid money rather than setting up an infrastructure or a social network where they can survive. The countries in Africa that have received the most aid money over the years are worse off as a whole, and worse off in comparison to countries that received less aid money or did not receive any. Loans are considered aid and that goes back to what you said about the IMF. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. When you create government welfare programs or give aid money to starving countries, you get more poor people and more starving people.

On top of that, when a rich country gives a poor country aid money, there are always strings attached. That means that the rich country inevitably gets some sort of power over the poor country. While initially it may work out ok, this power generally becomes misused in the near term or in the long term to influence the poor country to give up it's resources or land to benefit the global corporations.

The bottom line is these people would be much better off if we left them alone, and traded goods with them if they want to.

You keep talking about feudalism, but we are essentially feudal serfs to the banks with these ridiculous taxes that go towards nothing but paying interest on our national debt. Banks create money out of thin air to loan, then we pay them back with our tax money? C'mon, you've gotta see that the scam is being played on first and third world countries. I mean, sure, we get the benefits of the raping and pillaging of other countries that occurs through the global corporations, but we are still being sucked dry by the banks. We have no wealth, all we have is a bunch of plastic and electronic junk from china which will break within the next year or two or three.

Back to the feudal serf issue, there were plenty of great civilizations in the past that were not based on overlords. The Native Americans in North America were a great example. They had a big trading economy and used money. This was not well documented and the economy was destroyed when Americans moved west. The American colonies are another great example of how people and economies can flourish with freedom.

Again, I highly urge you to learn about our money supply and watch "The Creature From Jeckyll Island" that I posted earlier. Just because the global corporations have stolen us a bunch of treasure doesn't mean we aren't slaves. What will happen when we don't have third world country slaves to depend on? The US will be sunk. That is slavery. Freedom would allow us to build self more localized, self sufficient societies.

No one is saying to give money to the poor, you need to go back at how these societies (Latin America and Africa) became so dysfunctional. You start by researching the East India Company, British Colonial practices and the Dutch Monetary system. They need to be allowed to take control of their own sovereignty, the debt which was fraudulently created needs to be wiped off, and we need to help them build their infrastructure (damns, irrigation, nuclear, etc.) so they may prosper.

[Todd]

No one is saying to give money to the poor, you need to go back at how these societies (Latin America and Africa) became so dysfunctional. You start by researching the East India Company, British Colonial practices and the Dutch Monetary system. They need to be allowed to take control of their own sovereignty, the debt which was fraudulently created needs to be wiped off, and we need to help them build their infrastructure (damns, irrigation, nuclear, etc.) so they may prosper.

Enough of this circle jerk. Why don't you tell us what the solution is then?

[dannno]

Government does not run operations, FDR never ran an operation, they created a Hamiltonian style bank to provide credit for these projects. Money supply IS being manipulated, debased currently. The ultimate problem lies in the de-industrialization of America, in search of cheaper labor. The British oligarchs, whom are in control of this, want to destroy America, that has been their policy since the American Revolution.

Yes, the British oligarchs, aka the global bankers, have been attempting to undermine our country since it's inception. They are doing it using the Federal Reserve and manipulation through banking practices.. but these practices are all recognized as legal by the government. That is why we need an honest monetary policy. A bank should not be able to do anything that a regular citizen cannot. A bank can counterfeit money, but people cannot. This is wrong. This is why we need an honest monetary policy so that the bankers cannot take control of our government.

Bankers love war by the way. Countries usually go into debt during wars, and so they have to pay back a bunch of interest off leveraged money. It's a scam. That is what we are fighting here, the banking scam.

The bankers also love welfare because it pushes countries further into debt, and it creates more poor people in the long run. It is a mechanism to steal wealth.

[react1200]

Consider this:

http://wlym.com/%7Eleesburg/larpac/2009/090428_lpac_webcast_en.mp3

[Melissa]

No one is saying to give money to the poor, you need to go back at how these societies (Latin America and Africa) became so dysfunctional. You start by researching the East India Company, British Colonial practices and the Dutch Monetary system. They need to be allowed to take control of their own sovereignty, the debt which was fraudulently created needs to be wiped off, and we need to help them build their infrastructure (damns, irrigation, nuclear, etc.) so they may prosper.

My question is who is we, you should go do those things and donate your time and money to those projects but you want the government to force me to pay for them because you think it is a great project. What about if I think something else is a better use of my time and money to help people and you dont like that project should the government steal your money to help with my project

[dannno]

No one is saying to give money to the poor, you need to go back at how these societies (Latin America and Africa) became so dysfunctional. You start by researching the East India Company, British Colonial practices and the Dutch Monetary system. They need to be allowed to take control of their own sovereignty, the debt which was fraudulently created needs to be wiped off, and we need to help them build their infrastructure (damns, irrigation, nuclear, etc.) so they may prosper.

Ya but you have to realize that our country is being manipulated by the banks in the same way, and they are using that to control our government. We have a ridiculous amount of total debt (personal debt + govt. debt) in this country. Don't you see the parallels? The global banks control our government, and instead of trying to beat them (which you cannot.. they have too much resources to put behind their puppet candidates), it is important to put everyone on a level playing field by having an honest monetary system here at home. We have to make sure our politicians are following the constitution. That's all we need to do, really. It's very simple.

We all know there is a global scheme that has been going on for centuries that was started by these trading and financing companies. Freedom and honest money is their enemy. They need to be able to control governments to function properly.



Have you seen The Obama Deception?? It's all about how him and his cabinet are all Wall Streeters through and through. Really great film, lots of great information:


The Obama Deception (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756)

[react1200]

You guys are very passionate people, who are keen to see the issues that lie before us, however your solution (along with Obama's) are totally incompetent and will throw us into another dark age where pandemics run rampant and nation's lose their sovereignty. Please research trade wars of 1907, Andrew Mellon who worked under Hoover and the tariff acts he implemented (the depression was engineered as a British coup to destroy the US.

Consider this:

http://wlym.com/%7Eleesburg/larpac/2...webcast_en.mp3

I have already checked out some of those alarmist videos. The issue is being turned away from the true British evil, the oligarch and the Anglo Dutch Monetary system.

[dannno]

Consider this:

http://wlym.com/%7Eleesburg/larpac/2009/090428_lpac_webcast_en.mp3

That was...pretty....sneaky :D




You guys are very passionate people, who are keen to see the issues that lie before us, however your solution (along with Obama's) are totally incompetent and will throw us into another dark age where pandemics run rampant and nation's lose their sovereignty. Please research trade wars of 1907, Andrew Mellon who worked under Hoover and the tariff acts he implemented (the depression was engineered as a British coup to destroy the US.

Consider this:

http://wlym.com/%7Eleesburg/larpac/2...webcast_en.mp3

I have already checked out some of those alarmist videos. The issue is being turned away from the true British evil, the oligarch and the Anglo Dutch Monetary system.

As far as pandemics.. why do you think the government is the best solution?


YouTube - Congressman Paul on the Recent Swine Flu Scare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB5-Y08qbjo)


Government has proven over and over to make these things worse.

[gb13]

I see you're big into Lyndon LaRouche. I remember when I live in Santa Barbara, CA I would always see LaRouchePAC people outside of Trader Joe's with literature on various issues. I think you guys are working to prevent the same type of further abuse of the system and exploitation of the American people that we are, but I think you are drastically mistaken in your expectation of what will work and what will not.

You guys do have some good ideas, but FDR was no saint. I really don't understand all of the aggrandizement of FDR by the LaRouche folks. The New Deal was an economic toilet flush, the disastrous effects of which are being being dealt back to us in spades.. In fact, many of the real solutions to today's problems require abolishing FDR (and FDR-style) social programs.

Take, for instance, the fact that by the time the baby-boomers retire, about 40% of this country's entire GDP will be completely consumed by Social Security and Medicare. This will cripple us. Even as it is today, the $400 Billion+ that the U.S. pays in INTEREST on the national debt would rank as the 30th largest economy in the world.

It's completely unsustainable. It is impossible to cure the problem of too much spending with.... more spending. That is completely illogical. The only way to get out of this mess is to drastically reduce spending (incrementally, of course), and massively lower taxes.

We must repeal legal tender laws, abolish the federal income tax, and legalize competition in currency. The federal reserve must be put out of business.

We must lift federal regulations on everything from energy, to health-care... you name it. We need to rekindle the flame of free people, free markets, and the resultant entrepreneurship that made this country stand out above the totalitarian quasi-socialist/collectivist mess the rest of the world's people have always lived under; to their detriment. Why do you think they started coming her in droves once the word got out?: "A country who's government is small and doesn't bleed you dry? Let's go!" That was a sentiment that is vanishing faster than Hillary Clinton's femininity.

We must chain the federal government to the constitution and keep it on a 3-foot lead.

These are the solutions.

Wiping out the phony debt and then letting everybody start from square-one won't work in the slightest so long as we continue down the same tired path of massive spending, and abhorrent tax policy. Sure it may float for a few decades, but within a generation or two the same problems will manifest, and by that time the constitution and individual liberty will be a distant memory.

We need real solutions that will last far into the future; not another FDR-style Ponzi scheme.

[react1200]

That was...pretty....sneaky :D





As far as pandemics.. why do you think the government is the best solution?


YouTube - Congressman Paul on the Recent Swine Flu Scare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB5-Y08qbjo)


Government has proven over and over to make these things worse.

Gov is the only entity with the resources and reach to stop an pandemic before it starts, granted that it is a true pandemic and not a scare or distraction from the economy as this Swine Flu appears to be (yet to be determined). Other diseases such as tuberculosis, need to be addressed or else no matter how much money you have, if it is not stopped before it becomes a pandemic, it will affect you either directly by becoming sick, or indirectly by hurting your labor.

[react1200]

I see you're big into Lyndon LaRouche. I remember when I live in Santa Barbara, CA I would always see LaRouchePAC people outside of Trader Joe's with literature on various issues. I think you guys are working to prevent the same type of further abuse of the system and exploitation of the American people that we are, but I think you are drastically mistaken in your expectation of what will work and what will not.

You guys do have some good ideas, but FDR was no saint. I really don't understand all of the aggrandizement of FDR by the LaRouche folks. The New Deal was an economic toilet flush, the disastrous effects of which are being being dealt back to us in spades.. In fact, many of the real solutions to today's problems require abolishing FDR (and FDR-style) social programs.

Take, for instance, the fact that by the time the baby-boomers retire, about 40% of this country's entire GDP will be completely consumed by Social Security and Medicare. This will cripple us. Even as it is today, the $400 Billion+ that the U.S. pays in INTEREST on the national debt would rank as the 30th largest economy in the world.

It's completely unsustainable. It is impossible to cure the problem of too much spending with.... more spending. That is completely illogical. The only way to get out of this mess is to drastically reduce spending (incrementally, of course), and massively lower taxes.

We must repeal legal tender laws, abolish the federal income tax, and legalize competition in currency. The federal reserve must be put out of business.

We must lift federal regulations on everything from energy, to health-care... you name it. We need to rekindle the flame of free people, free markets, and the resultant entrepreneurship that made this country stand out above the totalitarian quasi-socialist/collectivist mess the rest of the world's people have always lived under; to their detriment. Why do you think they started coming her in droves once the word got out?: "A country who's government is small and doesn't bleed you dry? Let's go!" That was a sentiment that is vanishing faster than Hillary Clinton's femininity.

We must chain the federal government to the constitution and keep it on a 3-foot lead.

These are the solutions.

Wiping out the phony debt and then letting everybody start from square-one won't work in the slightest so long as we continue down the same tired path of massive spending, and abhorrent tax policy. Sure it may float for a few decades, but within a generation or two the same problems will manifest, and by that time the constitution and individual liberty will be a distant memory.

We need real solutions that will last far into the future; not another FDR-style Ponzi scheme.

An FDR solution is needed because our current infrastructure will not support current and future populations. Corporations are instruments of the banking system and ultimately are controlled by those who control the money supply (very few people with what is a fascist agenda). Their agenda is evident in the "Green" policies that they are implementing, they are for depopulation because in essence, that is what their global policies render. I am not a Larouche fanatic but I am in support of his policies since they, in my opinion, appear to be the only viable and feasible solution that precludes a new dark age and ultimately a human crisis where famine, pandemics, ignorance, drug/media culture take over. We need nuclear energy, desalination and high speed rail infrastructure around the world in order to increase productivity and decrease cost inflation.

[Todd]

My question is who is we, you should go do those things and donate your time and money to those projects but you want the government to force me to pay for them because you think it is a great project. What about if I think something else is a better use of my time and money to help people and you dont like that project should the government steal your money to help with my project

+1

Melissa...my bet is 10 -1 he doesn't give a rats you know what about that. Just try to convince some do gooders that there is an alternative to the almighty Holy government full of good intentions and miracles is pretty much pointless from the OP's comments.

[dannno]

Gov is the only entity with the resources and reach to stop an pandemic before it starts, granted that it is a true pandemic and not a scare or distraction from the economy as this Swine Flu appears to be (yet to be determined). Other diseases such as tuberculosis, need to be addressed or else no matter how much money you have, if it is not stopped before it becomes a pandemic, it will affect you either directly by becoming sick, or indirectly by hurting your labor.

No, this "swine flu" is actually a genetic mutation of bird, human and swine flu. It was created by microbiologists who were probably funded by the government. One man who died in Mexico met with the President only a few days before his demise. Coincidence?? I don't think so.

There are plenty of resources outside of government who would be interested in finding cures or vaccines and distributing them. They would do it more efficiently than government, therefore more would be available and more people could get it. If something is in demand, the free market is the best way of meeting that demand.

The point of the video above was never addressed. The government, in an attempt to erradicate the swine flu previously killed over 25 people with vaccines when only 1 person died of the flu. With that kind of performance record there is no way I would put my eggs in that basket.

[react1200]

+1

Melissa...my bet is 10 -1 he doesn't give a rats you know what about that. Just try to convince some do gooders that there is an alternative to the almighty Holy government full of good intentions and miracles is pretty much pointless from the OP's comments.

PLEASE! An FDR solution is needed because our current infrastructure will not support current and future populations. Corporations are instruments of the banking system and ultimately are controlled by those who control the money supply (very few people with what is a fascist agenda). Their agenda is evident in the "Green" policies that they are implementing, they are for depopulation because in essence, that is what their global policies render. I am not a Larouche fanatic but I am in support of his policies since they, in my opinion, appear to be the only viable and feasible solution that precludes a new dark age and ultimately a human crisis where famine, pandemics, ignorance, drug/media culture take over. We need nuclear energy, desalination and high speed rail infrastructure around the world in order to increase productivity and decrease cost inflation.

[Todd]

PLEASE! An FDR solution is needed because our current infrastructure will not support current and future populations. Corporations are instruments of the banking system and ultimately are controlled by those who control the money supply (very few people with what is a fascist agenda. Their agenda is evident in the "Green" policies that they are implementing, they are for depopulation because in essence, that is what their global policies render. I am not a Larouche fanatic but I am in support of his policies since they, in my opinion, appear to be the only viable and feasible solution that precludes a new dark age and ultimately a human crisis where famine, pandemics, ignorance, drug/media culture take over. We need nuclear energy, desalination and high speed rail infrastructure around the world in order to increase productivity and decrease cost inflation.

No one here will disagree with highlighted. An FDR solution is what we are getting from Mr. Obama.....so I'm confused about the following?


You guys are very passionate people, who are keen to see the issues that lie before us, however your solution (along with Obama's) are totally incompetent and will throw us into another dark age where pandemics run rampant and nation's lose their sovereignty.

Did you forget who his model for all his programs was?

[ClayTrainor]

PLEASE! An FDR solution is needed because our current infrastructure will not support current and future populations. The current infrastructure can't, i agree. We need to ditch the Federal reserve, the income tax, the War on Drugs, the Trillion Dollar / year foreign policy, etc. :)



Corporations are instruments of the banking system and ultimately are controlled by those who control the money supply

You're on the right track, with what's going on right now, but you're WAY OFF with your solutions.

You want government to seize more control, but in reality, the FED is the very source of the economic problems.


Their agenda is evident in the "Green" policies that they are implementing, they are for depopulation because in essence, that is what their global policies render.


Is this an anti- NWO statement? Perhaps we can find some common ground :cool:



We need nuclear energy, desalination and high speed rail infrastructure around the world in order to increase productivity and decrease cost inflation.

If you're correct, and these are the things we need, we will need a free-market and capitalism to achieve them, not socialism and increased government intervention.

You have far too little faith in your fellow man, and far too much faith in government, but i can tell you are a moral person who wants to do the right thing. You must remember that, "The Road to hell is paved with good intentions". Open up your history book and look at the absolute worst pages you can find. Big Governments are responsible for them.

The ultimate question is, will you do the right thing, or beg your government to do it for you? :)

[react1200]

No one here will disagree with highlighted. An FDR solution is what we are getting from Mr. Obama.....so I'm confused about the following?



Did you forget who his model for all his programs was?

Obama's was not an FDR solution, O has not launched Pecora commission to weed out the fraud. O is not investing into the physical economy which will allow the US and the world for that matter to survive what is about to be unleashed. Nuclear, Desalination and high speed rail. O is either wittingly or unwittingly destroying society at the center of his policies is Larry Summers.

[ClayTrainor]

Obama's was not an FDR solution, O has not launched Pecora commission to weed out the fraud. O is not investing into the physical economy which will allow the US and the world for that matter to survive what is about to be unleashed. Nuclear, Desalination and high speed rail. O is either wittingly or unwittingly destroying society at the center of his policies is Larry Summers.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton 1887

GIve the government a monopoly on anything, and you will get ugly results, rest assured. The Free-market with Rule of Law is by far the most effective way of achieving a stable society where everyone respects eachother.

[heavenlyboy34]

It gives us all the opportunity to see the fallacies and futility of Statism. I am glad to see so many RPFers provide non-state solutions. :D Spread this Indidvidualist philosophy far and wide, my fellow RPFers! Destroy the State wherever it tries to rear its ugly head! :):cool::D

[react1200]

The current infrastructure can't, i agree. We need to ditch the Federal reserve, the income tax, the War on Drugs, the Trillion Dollar / year foreign policy, etc. :)

One of the key objectives of the British Empire and its "Dope, Inc." apparatus is to keep the population out of touch with reality, by destroying people's creative ability and alienating them with different drugs. The legalization of drugs is an operation which is controlled by these imperialists, and which dupes a lot of terrified and ingenuous people, in order to get the funds to try to bail out their collapsing international financial system, which fundamentally worsens the world economic situation.


You're on the right track, with what's going on right now, but you're WAY OFF with your solutions.

You want government to seize more control, but in reality, the FED is the very source of the economic problems.

Is this an anti- NWO statement? Perhaps we can find some common ground :cool:

If you're correct, and these are the things we need, we will need a free-market and capitalism to achieve them, not socialism and increased government intervention.

You have far too little faith in your fellow man, and far too much faith in government, but i can tell you are a moral person who wants to do the right thing. You must remember that, "The Road to hell is paved with good intentions". Open up your history book and look at the absolute worst pages you can find. Big Governments are responsible for them.

The ultimate question is, will you do the right thing, or beg your government to do it for you? :)

Private capital will never invest in these projects since it will not be conducive to profits and such a policy is not on their agenda, thus if these steps are not implemented now, while the dollar still have value, their will be no chance for middle to lower class families surviving the coming onslaught of the green fascist movement. You should never have to beg your government, they should do what is necessary for people to live productive lives and for free enterprise to flourish. US has NO, ZERO productive capacity as we have shipped our industry overseas. Without those measure, there will never be any productive capacity (near term) after our dollar declines.

[react1200]

You guys are very passionate people, who are keen to see the issues that lie before us, however your solution (along with Obama's) are totally incompetent and will throw us into another dark age where pandemics run rampant and nation's lose their sovereignty. Please research trade wars of 1907, Andrew Mellon who worked under Hoover and the tariff acts he implemented (the depression was engineered as a British coup to destroy the US.

Consider this:

http://wlym.com/%7Eleesburg/larpac/2...webcast_en.mp3

I have already checked out some of those alarmist videos. The issue is being turned away from the true British evil, the oligarch and the Anglo Dutch Monetary system.

[Cowlesy]

The Crab Nebula causes global warming.

[ClayTrainor]

One of the key objectives of the British Empire and its "Dope, Inc." apparatus is to keep the population out of touch with reality, by destroying people's creative ability and alienating them with different drugs. The legalization of drugs is an operation which is controlled by these imperialists, and which dupes a lot of terrified and ingenuous people, in order to get the funds to try to bail out their collapsing international financial system, which fundamentally worsens the world economic situation.

Nonsense, total nonsense.

The Drug war is oppressive and has got to go. When there is demand, you can't cut off the supply and not expect a black market to form. It's basic economics man. Making all drugs legal is necessary to have a free society. You can't have a central entity deciding what is "moral" or what is "safe" outside of the basic Rule of Law for Individuals.

If someone finds out that i can smoke a Rose and get stoned, should it be illegal for me to grow a rose? Obviously not. The same argument applies to pot, poppy plants, and anything else that can get you stoned. Drugs are derived from nature, and humans should be allowed to possess and use them if they so choose. It's really none of your business and it's none of the governments.

In America they are supposed to defend individual rights, not find exceptions in which they can infringe upon them.

If they are dangerous, science and statistics will teach us that and logical people will be able to make sound decisions.

This isn't even a "drug" issue. It's really a private property issue. In a free country, i can do whatever the hell i want on my own property, so long as I do not infringe upon the rights of others.

It's really, really simple man.




Private capital will never invest in these projects since it will not be conducive to profits and such a policy is not on their agenda
What makes you think a profit structure can't be implemented? There is a road that i take every day here in Canada called the 407. You have to pay money to use it but it's always wide open and very well groomed. The government roads are always subject to traffic jams, inefficiency and extremely damaged conditions which require constant construction. Somehow the free-market road, which is based on a profit structure is able to make money and provide a service which satisfies it's customers.

Needless to say, my tax dollars are wasted, because i spend my own money in the free-market to use this privately owned road.

Also, Private capital will be invested in whatever the people feel the need to invest in. Obviously there is a huge demand for infrastructure, what makes you think there will be no supply? You can certainly make a profit building infrastructure, do you understand how business works?

Government is anti-business, when they monopolize the industries.



, thus if these steps are not implemented now, while the dollar still have value, their will be no chance for middle to lower class families surviving the coming onslaught of the green fascist movement.

Obviously i don't like the increased regulations and "Global Warming" hype, but all it is, is another excuse to expand the government and give a few people, a bunch of power.

I disagree with your prospective solutions. I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but i don't think you're right. I don't think a railroad, or nuclear plants are the way to go necessarily, sure they sound nice. I personally want to invest my money in Solar energy, because i can rig up my house 100% with solar panels for only $40,000 or so. What's wrong with this? Nothing... but thanks to constantly increasing taxes and inflation, i can't afford it yet. The government has too many failed pet projects, and i'm sure they'd find a way to screw up the ones you listed above.



You should never have to beg your government, they should do what is necessary for people to live productive lives and for free enterprise to flourish.
I agree. The purpose of government should be VERY limited. Balance the budget, protect the individual liberties of ALL individuals from oppressive governments both foreign and domestic.


US has NO, ZERO productive capacity as we have shipped our industry overseas. Without those measure, there will never be any productive capacity (near term) after our dollar declines.

Well, where is your government gonna steal the money from then? ;)

You need savings and production to have a functioning economy. Magically wishing your government to produce railroads and nuclear energy when you are facing bankruptcy, makes me giggle a little bit.

It's time for you to get realistic :cool:

This government isn't repairable.

[ClayTrainor]

You guys are very passionate people, who are keen to see the issues that lie before us, however your solution (along with Obama's) are totally incompetent and will throw us into another dark age where pandemics run rampant and nation's lose their sovereignty.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

;)

You just have a different big government agenda... Every liberal has an agenda and they all differ, but they're all right :rolleyes:

How about you admit that you don't know how to fix and save the world, and perhaps it's time you stop telling other what direction mankind "needs" to head in ;)

There are othere solutions you probably haven't even dreamed of yet, and a free-market would provide those even though you will deny it, i'm sure.

Private Schools > Public Schools

Private Clinics > PUblic clinics (in canada)

Private Mailing services > Government mailing services

Private Highway > Government Highway (In my area)

Private Charity > Government Charity (Especially when it comes to efficiency)

Profititable industries > Government debt ;)

[gb13]

An FDR solution is needed because our current infrastructure will not support current and future populations. Corporations are instruments of the banking system and ultimately are controlled by those who control the money supply (very few people with what is a fascist agenda). Their agenda is evident in the "Green" policies that they are implementing, they are for depopulation because in essence, that is what their global policies render. I am not a Larouche fanatic but I am in support of his policies since they, in my opinion, appear to be the only viable and feasible solution that precludes a new dark age and ultimately a human crisis where famine, pandemics, ignorance, drug/media culture take over. We need nuclear energy, desalination and high speed rail infrastructure around the world in order to increase productivity and decrease cost inflation.

You're right; our current infrastructure is insufficient. But, the question is: Who is better equipped to handle current and future demands? The government, or a TRULY Free Market? The answer lies in your own statements. Allow me to explain.

Your statement in bold is also correct. But, what you appear to overlook is that governments are just as much instruments of the banking system as are corporations. What we have here in America, is corporatism: government and corporations working together to exploit the people (as clearly evidenced by the recent bailouts). This is why we need to return control to the people. The Federal Reserve nurtures this corporatist system through manipulation of the money supply. By the way, the federal reserve is also a private corporation. It is granted an unconstitutional monopoly over the monetary system by the very same government in which you seem to have so much faith (you probably already know this).

But the federal reserve is merely a microcosm of the corporatist system (albeit, a HUGE one); every facet of our economy screams "corporatism". The pharmaceutical industry, the energy industries, the agricultural industries, et al, are dominated by giant corporations which were placed into existence by a corrupt, unaccountable government. Once in existence they are nurtured by the same despicable government via subsidies, and regulation which favor them and crush emerging competition. It's a codependent relationship that has become a cancer on our society. And it is ALL made possible by an all-encompassing and viciously corrupt government that is completely unanswerable to the PEOPLE. So, I ask you, how is giving these same individuals even more power any kind of solution?

If you want to end the corruption -as you appear to- the only way to do it is to shrink the size and scope of the Federal Government.

This endless cycle of taxpayer exploitation for the benefit of government/corporations can only be destroyed by a return constitutional government and the introduction of Free Market Capitalism -the real kind; not the phony 20th century corporatist version. The existence of the monopolies we have discussed would be impossible in a free market system. The reason for this is, that without collusion between the governments and corporations, there is never a chance for either party to become big/powerful enough to exploit the populace to the degree that we have suffered, and will continue to suffer until we usher in the age of free markets.

Bigger government = More potential for corruption. Smaller government = Less potential for corruption. It's simple math, and it's evidenced ad nauseam throughout human history. In fact, there is NO evidence that the opposite is true.

[acptulsa]

Dude.

Fascism is the combination of the corporate and the government. Ron Paul does nothing to promote this.

Your contention that private enterprise has no interest in high speed rail is completely unproven. We have the greatest freight rail system in the world, or one of them. The reason we can't say the same about passenger rail is because everywhere there's any market for passenger rail competition, the government is standing in the way. And the government hates for anyone to compete with it. They tend to take guns to anyone who tries.

Earlier you said that no one would be able to afford health insurance if it weren't for government. But if all insurers, and for that matter all doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, priced all of their services out of range they would all go under. Why would they do that? And if they did, why would you not step in, undercut their prices, and laugh at them while they play for dollars and get nothing and you play for pennies and get millions of them?

When government and corporations are in bed together, all the rules of the game go to support the corporations. The only way to avoid this is to make the rules so simple a child can understand them. This means cut government to the absolute essential minimum. Then it is easy to monitor and it is easy to spot the abuses. This is what Ron Paul stands for.

Any time you let a company meet a need, the company will do so as efficiently as possible. Any time you let a government meet a need, the government will do so as inefficiently as possible. I don't care who's in charge. Lyndon LaRouche would have no more incentive to do things efficiently than the next character. Because if you don't have competition, and you can force people to fund your enterprise, efficiency will always take a back seat to giving your incompetent brother in law a job. Look at history.

Point your accusations of fascism where they belong.

[react1200]

Nonsense, total nonsense.

The Drug war is oppressive and has got to go. When there is demand, you can't cut off the supply and not expect a black market to form. It's basic economics man. Making all drugs legal is necessary to have a free society. You can't have a central entity deciding what is "moral" or what is "safe" outside of the basic Rule of Law for Individuals.

If someone finds out that i can smoke a Rose and get stoned, should it be illegal for me to grow a rose? Obviously not. The same argument applies to pot, poppy plants, and anything else that can get you stoned. Drugs are derived from nature, and humans should be allowed to possess and use them if they so choose. It's really none of your business and it's none of the governments.

In America they are supposed to defend individual rights, not find exceptions in which they can infringe upon them.

If they are dangerous, science and statistics will teach us that and logical people will be able to make sound decisions.

This isn't even a "drug" issue. It's really a private property issue. In a free country, i can do whatever the hell i want on my own property, so long as I do not infringe upon the rights of others.

It's really, really simple man.


What makes you think a profit structure can't be implemented? There is a road that i take every day here in Canada called the 407. You have to pay money to use it but it's always wide open and very well groomed. The government roads are always subject to traffic jams, inefficiency and extremely damaged conditions which require constant construction. Somehow the free-market road, which is based on a profit structure is able to make money and provide a service which satisfies it's customers.

Needless to say, my tax dollars are wasted, because i spend my own money in the free-market to use this privately owned road.

Also, Private capital will be invested in whatever the people feel the need to invest in. Obviously there is a huge demand for infrastructure, what makes you think there will be no supply? You can certainly make a profit building infrastructure, do you understand how business works?

Government is anti-business, when they monopolize the industries.



Obviously i don't like the increased regulations and "Global Warming" hype, but all it is, is another excuse to expand the government and give a few people, a bunch of power.

I disagree with your prospective solutions. I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but i don't think you're right. I don't think a railroad, or nuclear plants are the way to go necessarily, sure they sound nice. I personally want to invest my money in Solar energy, because i can rig up my house 100% with solar panels for only $40,000 or so. What's wrong with this? Nothing... but thanks to constantly increasing taxes and inflation, i can't afford it yet. The government has too many failed pet projects, and i'm sure they'd find a way to screw up the ones you listed above.


I agree. The purpose of government should be VERY limited. Balance the budget, protect the individual liberties of ALL individuals from oppressive governments both foreign and domestic.


Well, where is your government gonna steal the money from then? ;)

You need savings and production to have a functioning economy. Magically wishing your government to produce railroads and nuclear energy when you are facing bankruptcy, makes me giggle a little bit.

It's time for you to get realistic :cool:

This government isn't repairable.

Drugs hinder the creative, moral and productive capacities of humans. That is a proven fact and thus should not be legalized. To fight the drug war, you have to destroy those that are financing the other side (destroy George Soros, British financiers and the oligarch, the drug pushers/growers you see is a symptom of the economic breakdown, they are trying to eat and feed families).

The Government, via the constitution, can utter credit with approval from Congress and the presidency so that we may build nuclear plants, desalination plants and high speed rail for labor and goods transportation around the world.

Corporations will not, due to the monetary system (controlled by the British Oligarch who control the money supply) invest into anything that isn't green. This is evident in the agenda they are pursuing. In order for you, and anyone else on this forum to survive, for their children to survive, they will need to have an infrastructure that sustains them.

[acptulsa]

Corporations will not, due to the monetary system (controlled by the British Oligarch who control the money supply) invest into anything that isn't green. This is evident in the agenda they are pursuing. In order for you, and anyone else on this forum to survive, for their children to survive, they will need to have an infrastructure that sustains them.

Whatever there is a demand for, free enterprise will supply. Doesn't matter what it is. If the people with the money demand it, and demand that it be done in a 'green' way, their will shall be done.

[ClayTrainor]

Drugs hinder the creative, moral and productive capacities of humans. That is a proven fact and thus should not be legalized.

You have no idea what you're talking about on this issue. The above is total nonsense. Some drugs do have this effect, as do legal ones, obviously, but this is such a broad statement tainted with bullshit.

Drug:

"A substance used to treat an illness, relieve a symptom, or modify a chemical process in the body for a specific purpose"- Wiktionary

Should we ban Tylenol, and NyQuil too? AFter all, you can do a lot of harm to your body if you take far too large of a dose. The funny thing is, pot is less harmful than 99% of all legalized drugs.

There are several drugs that are illegal, that are totally healthy, and even the ones that are not, are often no more harmful than Macdonalds as long as you do them in moderation. Pot being illegal is total nonsense.



To fight the drug war, you have to destroy those that are financing the other side (destroy George Soros, British financiers and the oligarch, the drug pushers/growers you see is a symptom of the economic breakdown, they are trying to eat and feed families).

Make Drugs legal, and you subject them to free-market competition. Duh. The only reason these pigs survive is because they feed on the black-market. Get it? There is demand, and no matter how hard you try, you can't suppress that demand with the Drug Laws. Wasn't alcohol prohibition enough evidence for you?



The Government, via the constitution, can utter credit with approval from Congress and the presidency so that we may build nuclear plants

Perhaps, but there is a lenghty process to get something like this done. It needs to be deliberated in detail, on the floor :)

I'm all for it, if it's done the constitutional way, but ultimately, if they use the FED to achieve these goals, it's instantly unconstitutional.



Corporations will not, due to the monetary system (controlled by the British Oligarch who control the money supply) invest into anything that isn't green.
Give me a break. Almost Everybody is interested in investing in "green" technologies. The smart car companies are working for higher fuel efficiency and greener solutions, the computer companies are workign on ways to reduce energy, etc. And what exactly do you mean by "Green solutions" anyways? I hope you're not one of those "There's too much C02 in the atmosphere" conspiracy nuts. You seem too smart for that :)


This is evident in the agenda they are pursuing. In order for you, and anyone else on this forum to survive, for their children to survive, they will need to have an infrastructure that sustains them.

Nonsense. I can provide for myself and my family just fine, with the free-market. Just because you say i need government to survive doesn't make it so. They are there to provide rule of law, and enforce contracts, not to provide wonderful things to help people prosper.

You gotta achieve success on your own, bub! ;)

[KoldKut]

...

[gb13]

This guy is trolling.

Maybe, maybe not... but it's a good debate. Can't expect to further our efforts by saying everyone who disagrees is a troll.

We can all come out more informed from this type of discussion.

Rather than calling him a troll, why not shed some light on the errors you see in his logic?

[react1200]

You have no idea what you're talking about on this issue. The above is total nonsense. Some drugs do have this effect, as do legal ones, obviously, but this is such a broad statement tainted with bullshit.

Drug:

"A substance used to treat an illness, relieve a symptom, or modify a chemical process in the body for a specific purpose"- Wiktionary

Should we ban Tylenol, and NyQuil too? AFter all, you can do a lot of harm to your body if you take far too large of a dose. The funny thing is, pot is less harmful than 99% of all legalized drugs.

There are several drugs that are illegal, that are totally healthy, and even the ones that are not, are often no more harmful than Macdonalds as long as you do them in moderation. Pot being illegal is total nonsense.

Were obviously not talking about those type of drugs, be intelligent! We are talking about Crack, Cocaine, Meth, LSD, Opium. These drugs destroy society and its productive capacities. These are the drugs they want to get you hooked on. Pot is another issue, I agree, it should legal and hemp should be used to increase productivity.




Make Drugs legal, and you subject them to free-market competition. Duh. The only reason these pigs survive is because they feed on the black-market. Get it? There is demand, and no matter how hard you try, you can't suppress that demand with the Drug Laws. Wasn't alcohol prohibition enough evidence for you?


People use drugs for various reasons. We (USA) do not have a drug problem, we have a cultural problem that leads us to use drugs. The majority of population is swayed by media to use drugs through various methods. Research China's Opium war and research what the Oligarch did via the British East India Co before commenting on what I say. Their policy is to get the society hooked, through various methods (media), diminish productivity and capacity and plunder natural resource and eliminate their sovereignty. Essentially, getting the country to destroy itself.



Give me a break. Almost Everybody is interested in investing in "green" technologies. The smart car companies are working for higher fuel efficiency and greener solutions, the computer companies are workign on ways to reduce energy, etc. And what exactly do you mean by "Green solutions" anyways? I hope you're not one of those "There's too much C02 in the atmosphere" conspiracy nuts. You seem too smart for that :)

It is not conspiracy. Scientists working with government have left out medieval time period data where the earth was warmer. The warming we have been experiencing is not due to C02, there is plenty of evidence to back this up. Al Gore is an outright liar for the British. Do some research before accusing me of conspiracy theories:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/18oct_solarminimum.htm



Nonsense. I can provide for myself and my family just fine, with the free-market. Just because you say i need government to survive doesn't make it so. They are there to provide rule of law, and enforce contracts, not to provide wonderful things to help people prosper.

You gotta achieve success on your own, bub! ;)

I currently work, make a good living in LA and I support my fam. The issue is that none of us will be supporting any fam if the productive capacity is not increased. Most of us will probably die of famine or pandemic if we continue this course. You do this with nuclear power, desalination of ocean water and high speed rail (it has been established corporations, who are an apparatus of this fascist monetary system we are currently under, will not do this. Anyone who says we will need charity, gardens and such is totally and completely incompetent and should be labeled as such.

[KoldKut]

...

[react1200]

Anybody that posts

"Drugs hinder the creative, moral and productive capacities of humans. That is a proven fact and thus should not be legalized."

is a troll. It's just that simple.

Go get hooked on heroin and try to become a dr, scientist, engineer. Lets see how well you do.

[Objectivist]

If Ron's austerity cuts to education and health were implemented, who would help the poor? Who would vaccinate them in order to stop pandemics? We know capitalism cannot function without a lower class. Who will look after them to make sure they are able to educate/sustain themselves?

Case in point, Mexico's collapse, which started after US and British waged economic war against them via de-industrilization and debt via IMF (as in Argentina), has decimated their health care system. Now we have a pandemic and that is global. Government is not inherently corrupt if properly regulated, corrupt deregulation, such as repealing Glass Steagal, has caused much of our woes. We need a new FDR style Pecora commission to root out the corrupt financiers. Anyone who thinks privatizing public infrastructure such as utilities only needs to look at Enron to see what these corporations are capable of.

Most of our current vital infrastructure only exists because of the New Deal (electricity, damns, super highways, etc.) so how can we say FDR was evil as did Amity Slaes and the American Liberty League (who openly supported Hitler) did. We have British financier operatives, such as George Soros, in our midst bringing down our system and thus our way of life. They are murderer's as was JP Morgan, Dupont, Rothchilds, Bush, Alcoa, etc, who financed Hitler. Austrian economics will serve to throw the majority of the population in extreme poverty, private capital will not invest in infrastructure or anything that is beneficial to the greater good, they are only interested in profits. These policies will only serve to depopulate the world, which the Queen of England has openly stated as the agenda.

We know the system is bankrupt due to the estimated quadrillion or so credit default swaps. We need to put it death now and restart in coordination with other countries. In order to have a sustainable economy and society we need to invest into nuclear and desalination of water.

My question to Ron, how do his policies address the issues people living in extreme poverty, the disabled, the handicapped, the sick? Also, volunteerism will only work IF people actually decide to intervene, judging from our culture, and what is happening in Africa, we wont.

YouTube - Congressman Paul on the Recent Swine Flu Scare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB5-Y08qbjo&feature=popular)

In the video above pay attention to the part about the 1976 Flu outbreak, where more people died because of government intervention than from the actual Flu. You wanna try for 2 out of 3?

[react1200]

In the video above pay attention to the part about the 1976 Flu outbreak, where more people died because of government intervention than from the actual Flu. You wanna try for 2 out of 3?

This is just one example, could it had been human error? Could there had been more deaths if it weren't for the vaccinations?

We know from studies that pandemics grow exponentially, so if people are dying from a flu, say millions and counting, and the government has a potential vaccine, do you suggest that the government should sit back and do nothing????

[Objectivist]

Do you realize that more people die from the FDA holding up drugs than allowing them to hit the market? If I told you there is a drug that cures 87% of cancer and causes strokes in 2% of the people who take it would you allow it to hit the market, or hold it up?

And your thoughts on roads, dams and electricity are flawed. WHo built the ships that carry the freight across the oceans? WHo built the railroads? The only reason AMTRAK exists is because of over regulation and taxation with a followup government "bailout" that forced the rail companies to comply and take a share of AMTRAK stock.

[Objectivist]

This is just one example, could it had been human error? Could there had been more deaths if it weren't for the vaccinations?

We know from studies that pandemics grow exponentially, so if people are dying from a flu, say millions and counting, and the government has a potential vaccine, do you suggest that the government should sit back and do nothing????

On the issue of 'sitting back and do nothing" They are doing just that now! They are taking the World Health Organization/United Nations advice, do you think they have OUR interest at heart? And last I checked this is the United States, not the United Nations.

[Melissa]

I currently work, make a good living in LA and I support my fam. The issue is that none of us will be supporting any fam if the productive capacity is not increased. Most of us will probably die of famine or pandemic if we continue this course. You do this with nuclear power, desalination of ocean water and high speed rail (it has been established corporations, who are an apparatus of this fascist monetary system we are currently under, will not do this. Anyone who says we will need charity, gardens and such is totally and completely incompetent and should be labeled as such.

Again I ask the question...this is your solution to our problems so you want government to steal my money to fund what you think is the right choices. I have different ideas of what would solve our problems can government steal your money for my projects. You just dont seem to realize the problem is so many people think they have the right answer and want government to fund thier project of choice and then we all lose again go take your money and donate to these projects and let me keep my money to fund the ones I think will work.

[react1200]

Okay, I know a lot you don't agree with me. Know that I am in support of some of Ron's and Peter's proposals and you obviously know what I am not in support of. Please give this a chance:

http://wlym.com/%7Eleesburg/larpac/2009/090428_lpac_webcast_en.mp3

If would be awesome if Ron supporters and Larouche supporters could come together by analyzing all the information, much to lengthy and granular for a forum, and come together to fight against the powers that be.

[Objectivist]

Again I ask the question...this is your solution to our problems so you want government to steal my money to fund what you think is the right choices. I have different ideas of what would solve our problems can government steal your money for my projects. You just dont seem to realize the problem is so many people think they have the right answer and want government to fund thier project of choice and then we all lose again go take your money and donate to these projects and let me keep my money to fund the ones I think will work.

My favorite question is this, name 5 things that government has solved? Nobody has given a good answer yet, one came close to one thing but it wasn't conclusive because it might have been accomplished in time by the private sector had the government not been intrusive. Basically the government hijacked an idea.

[react1200]

Government, in its current state, is to pretend to fail while British financial interests plunder and ship industries that flourished because of FDR New Deal, overseas.

FDR - Irrigation to dust bowl (prevented famine), Damns, electricity to rural areas so that they to could become productive, redistributed the wealth of the wealthy powers (Rockerfellers, Du Pont, JP Morgan) which was acquired fraudulently via zombie corporations, defeated Fascism at home and Germany. FDR did what Alexander Hamilton advocated, FDR never intended to do away with capitalism.

Every president after that was incompetent except JFK.

[Melissa]

Government, in its current state, is to pretend to fail while British financial interests plunder and ship industries that flourished because of FDR New Deal, overseas.

FDR - Irrigation to dust bowl (prevented famine), Damns, electricity to rural areas so that they to could become productive, redistributed the wealth of the wealthy powers (Rockerfellers, Du Pont, JP Morgan) which was acquired fraudulently via zombie corporations, defeated Fascism at home and Germany. FDR did what Alexander Hamilton advocated, FDR never intended to do away with capitalism.

Every president after that was incompetent except JFK.

Um I am not an expert but got to be thinking if he redistrubuted wealth.... that is not the free market...so kinda a contradiction huh

[react1200]

Again I ask the question...this is your solution to our problems so you want government to steal my money to fund what you think is the right choices. I have different ideas of what would solve our problems can government steal your money for my projects. You just dont seem to realize the problem is so many people think they have the right answer and want government to fund thier project of choice and then we all lose again go take your money and donate to these projects and let me keep my money to fund the ones I think will work.

Sorry for not responding, so many posts. It is not stealing, to think it is stealing is ignorant although the current administration is stealing under Larry Summers. The money needs to go into creating a sustainable future, nuclear, desalination and high speed rail which will allow are kids to be productive and survive. Please read some of my earlier posts for more info. Thanks.

[ClayTrainor]

Were obviously not talking about those type of drugs, be intelligent! We are talking about Crack, Cocaine, Meth, LSD, Opium. These drugs destroy society and its productive capacities. These are the drugs they want to get you hooked on. Pot is another issue, I agree, it should legal and hemp should be used to increase productivity.


The problem is, when you make them illegal, you dont' get rid of the demand or the supply, you just convert it into a black market, which is what breeds the criminality.

If you legalize these extremely stupid, harmful drugs like crack, there would be little to no increase in their usage, because no one wants to do them. Making them illegal wouldn't make them safe. In fact diseases spread through drug needles in the black market.

The government doesn't know what's best for you, and pot is a great example of them over-stepping their bounds. All drugs should be legal, because then it can be properly regulated. Prohibition man, it simply doesn't work, when there's demand.


No matter how hard you try to stop it from happening, it will only be worse with your solution, because the black market will run the show. Free-markets > black-markets ;)




People use drugs for various reasons. We (USA) do not have a drug problem, we have a cultural problem that leads us to use drugs. The majority of population is swayed by media to use drugs through various methods. Research China's Opium war and research what the Oligarch did via the British East India Co before commenting on what I say. Their policy is to get the society hooked, through various methods (media), diminish productivity and capacity and plunder natural resource and eliminate their sovereignty. Essentially, getting the country to destroy itself.



That's your opinion. there are several drugs that i have done, which have only expanded my mind. I do DMT every single night, and it's deemed illegal by my government. You also do this drug every single night, and break the law ;)



It is not conspiracy. Scientists working with government have left out medieval time period data where the earth was warmer. The warming we have been experiencing is not due to C02, there is plenty of evidence to back this up. Al Gore is an outright liar for the British. Do some research before accusing me of conspiracy theories:


Heh... well i've done enough research. I was a former weather observer at CYQG airport for 2 years, and studied weather theory for a year.

I agree wiht what you said here and i apologize for thinking you bought into that nonsense.

What exactly do you mean by "greener" solutions, may i ask?



I currently work, make a good living in LA and I support my fam. The issue is that none of us will be supporting any fam if the productive capacity is not increased. Most of us will probably die of famine or pandemic if we continue this course. Not those of use, who think ahead and store food, gold and other assets ;)


You do this with nuclear power, desalination of ocean water and high speed rail (it has been established corporations, who are an apparatus of this fascist monetary system we are currently under, will not do this. Anyone who says we will need charity, gardens and such is totally and completely incompetent and should be labeled as such. You think the solution is on a big government scale, but the solution lies in you and me, as individuals. I know you want some grand magical cure, but sorry bro. You're gonna have to work your way outta this depression and so are we. No government will save us, and we shouldn't expect them to after what they've done to us.

[react1200]

Um I am not an expert but got to be thinking if he redistrubuted wealth.... that is not the free market...so kinda a contradiction huh

OMG! You can't be serious?? Research zombie corporations, Alcoa, JP Morgan and Dupont and the fascist dictator they supported. They had no legal right to that money, they created zombie corporations, under earlier presidencies, as a conduit to steal that money. Study John Law and the French Revolution.

[Melissa]

Sorry for not responding, so many posts. It is not stealing, to think it is stealing is ignorant although the current administration is stealing under Larry Summers. The money needs to go into creating a sustainable future, nuclear, desalination and high speed rail which will allow are kids to be productive and survive. Please read some of my earlier posts for more info. Thanks.

How is it not stealing, I don't like your ideas on how to fix things, why cant I keep my money to decide if my ideas are right. How is it not stealing... can I come over to your house and take your money by force for a project I want to do...if so give me your address and if not then why and how is that any different then what you want government to do

What you are not understanding is government was created by the people so they cant have more power then the people have that would make them more powerful then their creator.. so if they were created by the people they only have the same power as the people have and I can't take your money as I dont have that power so I have no right to give that power to the government.

[Melissa]

OMG! You can't be serious?? Research zombie corporations, Alcoa, JP Morgan and Dupont and the fascist dictator they supported. They had no legal right to that money, they created zombie corporations, under earlier presidencies, as a conduit to steal that money. Study John Law and the French Revolution.

Wow I was being sacastic again if you want to invest in things go for it but you have no right to take my money for your projects what do you not get about this...it is theft and no two ways about it

[andrewh817]

When taxes are lowered donations to private charities increase. What you are suggesting is that American are such evil people that they will just sit there and watch their neighbors suffer. If Americans are such morally reprehensible people as to not care for those in need, then what hope if there of government, which would be made up of the same reprehensible individuals?


You hit the nail on the head! And to the people who think the government will spend the billions it takes from us wisely...... take this into consideration.

Every time you see a police car, ambulance, or fire truck driving around without their sirens on, money is being wasted. The government wants new laws for minimum MPG for vehicles, yet every type of vehicle the government uses gets poor gas mileage.

Also keep this in mind, a police officer (and just about every other government worker) gets paid the same amount on a day they make no arrests/tickets/prosecutions as they do on a day they get 10. If government workers were paid by the amount of work/service they actually had to do, chances are most wouldn't be working full time.

And then getting to the most basic argument, why do you think that the government can spend your money more wisely than you? Why would you ever want to give up the choice of exactly where your money goes?

[react1200]

[QUOTE=ClayTrainor;2104021]The problem is, when you make them illegal, you dont' get rid of the demand or the supply, you just convert it into a black market.

If you legalize these extremely stupid, harmful drugs like crack, there would be little to no increase in their usage, because no one wants to do them. Making them illegal wouldn't make them safe.

The government doesn't know what's best for you, and pot is a great example of them over-stepping their bounds. All drugs should be legal, because then it can be properly regulated. Prohibition man, it simply doesn't work, when there's demand.


No matter how hard you try to stop it from happening, it will only be worse with your solution, because the black market will run the show. Free-markets > black-markets ;)


Because the constitution was made to protect citizens from those who want to destroy society with drugs therefore; the government (Fed and State) should protect citizens from drug pushers who prey on those less informed. I am not talking about drug pushers on the street (they are only a symptom of a collapsing economy), I am talking about those that finance the trade, the British Oligarch:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.




That's your opinion. there are several drugs that i have done, which have only expanded my mind. I do DMT every single night, and it's deemed illegal by my government. You also do this drug every single night, and break the law ;)

Oh brother....No wonder the baby boomers turned out to be so astute.



Heh... well i've done enough research. I was a former weather observer at CYQG airport for 2 years, and studied weather theory for a year.

I agree wiht what you said here and i apologize for thinking you bought into that nonsense.

What exactly do you mean by "greener" solutions, may i ask?

The kinds of things this administration, really British Oligarch interests, wants to implement is cap and trade based on C02 emissions. This essentially will limit what each country can produce, thus limiting resources and supply and causing high prices on basic commodities. This IS a form of fascism and will serve to depopulate the world. It should be known that C02 as cause for global warming is a fraud.

[react1200]

Wow I was being sacastic again if you want to invest in things go for it but you have no right to take my money for your projects what do you not get about this...it is theft and no two ways about it

Not if we follow the Constitution and do it for the greater good of society:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[react1200]

You hit the nail on the head! And to the people who think the government will spend the billions it takes from us wisely...... take this into consideration.

Every time you see a police car, ambulance, or fire truck driving around without their sirens on, money is being wasted. The government wants new laws for minimum MPG for vehicles, yet every type of vehicle the government uses gets poor gas mileage.

Also keep this in mind, a police officer (and just about every other government worker) gets paid the same amount on a day they make no arrests/tickets/prosecutions as they do on a day they get 10. If government workers were paid by the amount of work/service they actually had to do, chances are most wouldn't be working full time.

And then getting to the most basic argument, why do you think that the government can spend your money more wisely than you? Why would you ever want to give up the choice of exactly where your money goes?

Please read my earlier posts on this. Anyone who things charity, gardens etc. can have any real impact on what is about to be unleashed, does not grasp the severity of the problem. Current infrastructure will NOT meet the demands of current and future populations and the agenda of the Anglo Dutch Monetary system is to depopulate. Nuclear, desalination and high speed rail is what we need.

[dannno]

Drugs hinder the creative, moral and productive capacities of humans. That is a proven fact and thus should not be legalized. To fight the drug war, you have to destroy those that are financing the other side (destroy George Soros, British financiers and the oligarch, the drug pushers/growers you see is a symptom of the economic breakdown, they are trying to eat and feed families).

The Government, via the constitution, can utter credit with approval from Congress and the presidency so that we may build nuclear plants, desalination plants and high speed rail for labor and goods transportation around the world.

Corporations will not, due to the monetary system (controlled by the British Oligarch who control the money supply) invest into anything that isn't green. This is evident in the agenda they are pursuing. In order for you, and anyone else on this forum to survive, for their children to survive, they will need to have an infrastructure that sustains them.


Well, once again you're right that the drug business is run by the ruling elite, but they are ALSO the ones who made them illegal!! They control the black market, so they get to decide who gets the enormous profits from drug trading and who doesn't. If you made them legal, then as Ron Paul says, they would be "worthless". This would take away yet another profit source of the global elite.

I've known a lot of really creative people who use drugs, and I've known a lot of really uncreative people who do not. So I don't know about your theory of drugs and creativity. Either way, it's irrelevent because the war on drugs is very destructive, and it was created by big corporations.

Also, if Ron Paul was the answer to the corporatist dream, then he would be President. The media is owned and controlled by large corporations, and they blacked out Ron Paul during the election and put Obama into office. So your theory there is a bit flawed.

[heavenlyboy34]

Not if we follow the Constitution and do it for the greater good of society:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You VASTLY misunderstand the general welfare clause.

Read this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo144.html) and this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger58.html) for starters. (others will likely provide more for you)

[react1200]

Well, once again you're right that the drug business is run by the ruling elite, but they are ALSO the ones who made them illegal!! They control the black market, so they get to decide who gets the enormous profits from drug trading and who doesn't. If you made them legal, then as Ron Paul says, they would be "worthless". This would take away yet another profit source of the global elite.

I've known a lot of really creative people who use drugs, and I've known a lot of really uncreative people who do not. So I don't know about your theory of drugs and creativity. Either way, it's irrelevent because the war on drugs is very destructive, and it was created by big corporations.

Also, if Ron Paul was the answer to the corporatist dream, then he would be President. The media is owned and controlled by large corporations, and they blacked out Ron Paul and put Obama into office. So your theory there is a bit flawed.

This depends how you define creativity. Making music while you are high is not what I am talking about. I am talking about creativity in sciences and analysis and creating things that move humanity as a whole forward. The people who finance the drug trade (research George Soros) would LOVE to legalize it which is why we see Mexico (just announced today, good to know the corrupt leaders of Mexico have their priorities straight) moving to legalize hard drugs today. It will not bring the cost down, nor make it any less of a war due to the nature of these drugs and the affect it has on the human mind. You move to legalize it, they will move to make sure they profit and prey on the public via media. Just look at cigs and alcohol.

[react1200]

You VASTLY misunderstand the general welfare clause.

Read this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo144.html) and this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger58.html) for starters. (others will likely provide more for you)

As to how to interpret it, that is a whole other issue as many entities have interpreted differently and how/whom it applies.

[gb13]

Please read my earlier posts on this. Anyone who things charity, gardens etc. can have any real impact on what is about to be unleashed, does not grasp the severity of the problem. Current infrastructure will NOT meet the demands of current and future populations and the agenda of the Anglo Dutch Monetary system is to depopulate. Nuclear, desalination and high speed rail.

I will not answer this again, but rather direct you to my last post (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2103861#post2103861).

The question is whether the government or a Free Market is better equipped to provide the necessary infrastructure.

But further, our government has no moral or legal right to redistribute wealth in any way. Your solutions may work, but other solutions may work even better. The Marketplace is the only arena where the answer can be discovered. No oligarch (neither ours, nor the "Brittish") can be trusted to find the most effective solution, and no oligarch has any rightful claim to the fruits the of the labor of flesh-and-blood American people. Period.

[ClayTrainor]

[QUOTE]

Because the constitution was made to protect citizens from those who want to destroy society with drugs therefore; the government (Fed and State) should protect citizens from drug pushers who prey on those less informed. I am not talking about drug pushers on the street (they are only a symptom of a collapsing economy), I am talking about those that finance the trade, the British Oligarch:


Take down the guy on top of the Market structure, and he will be replaced with someone else. Do you really think it's 1 man, or 1 group of men, responsible? No, it's a black market that exists due to DEMAND

No matter how many drug lords you tear down, they will be replaced with another one, often an even worse one.




Oh brother....No wonder the baby boomers turned out to be so astute. You probably don't even know what DMT is, but likely support keeping it illegal :rolleyes:


You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to drugs and what drugs are, that much is clear.



The kinds of things this administration, really British Oligarch interests, wants to implement is cap and trade based on C02 emissions. This essentially will limit what each country can produce, thus limiting resources and supply and causing high prices on basic commodities. This IS a form of fascism and will serve to depopulate the world. It should be known that C02 as cause for global warming is a fraud.

Totally agreed.

[react1200]

[QUOTE=react1200;2104039]

Take down the guy on top of the Market structure, and he will be replaced with someone else. Do you really think it's 1 man, or 1 group of men, responsible? No, it's a black market that exists due to DEMAND

No matter how many drug lords you tear down, they will be replaced with another one, often an even worse one.

You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to drugs and what drugs are, that much is clear.

Please research the Opium Wars of China and the British East India Co. I know what I am talking about. Drugs are a symptom of sociological and cultural issues.

[react1200]

Okay, I know a lot you don't agree with me. Know that I am in support of some of Ron's and Peter's proposals and you obviously know what I am not in support of. Please give this a chance:

http://wlym.com/%7Eleesburg/larpac/2...webcast_en.mp3

It would be awesome if Ron supporters and Larouche supporters could come together by analyzing all the information, much to lengthy and granular for a forum, and come together to fight against the powers that be.

[ClayTrainor]

[QUOTE=ClayTrainor;2104063]

Please research the Opium Wars of China and the British East India Co. I know what I am talking about. Drugs are a symptom of sociological and cultural issues.

Heh... i beg to differ. Sure drugs can be harmful and so can macdonalds. YOu lack understanding of what "Individual Rights" are.

Drugs are a part of nature, and they are a tool. Sometimes harmful, sometimes helpful. Even the harmful ones often have helpful purposes. How about you let doctors and scientisits decide what's good for you, instead of the government.

I stand by my statement, that you have very little understanding of the War on Drugs and how it pertains to individual rights. You understand how you want it to be regulated, but you don't understand the source of the problem. It's more of an economic issue than a social issue.

http://www.mises.org/story/2174

YouTube - Harvard economist: Legalize all drugs to stop border violence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAYZ-sbrNRU)

[heavenlyboy34]

As to how to interpret it, that is a whole other issue as many entities have interpreted differently and how/whom it applies.

Since your entire argument seems to hinge on the GWC, it would behoove you to provide better evidence than what you've provided thus far. ;)

[ClayTrainor]

It would be awesome if Ron supporters and Larouche supporters could come together by analyzing all the information, much to lengthy and granular for a forum, and come together to fight against the powers that be.

I'll have to look into Larouche more, but i'll get back to you.

We do appear to have some common ground, on *some* issues :cool:

[Objectivist]

Government, in its current state, is to pretend to fail while British financial interests plunder and ship industries that flourished because of FDR New Deal, overseas.

FDR - Irrigation to dust bowl (prevented famine), Damns, electricity to rural areas so that they to could become productive, redistributed the wealth of the wealthy powers (Rockerfellers, Du Pont, JP Morgan) which was acquired fraudulently via zombie corporations, defeated Fascism at home and Germany. FDR did what Alexander Hamilton advocated, FDR never intended to do away with capitalism.

Every president after that was incompetent except JFK.

Here's the words of Henry Morganthau Jr. on May 9th, 1939.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I'm wrong.... somebody else can have my job. I want to see people get a job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises.... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.... ANd an enormous debt to boot."

Now he said this in front of the House Ways and Means Committee of the United States Congress and I doubt by your ignorant comments so far that you have a clue as to who Henry Morganthau Jr. is. Well since I do and have read numerous books on the subject and your spouting off crap some Junior College Rube taught you, here it is.... He was FDRs best friend and neighbor, he was appointed by FDR as the Secretary of the Treasury. So if you wan to argue, then argue with the dead guy as he knows this better than you and I, as he implemented the programs of the New Deal.

Now go read a dozen books from different eras about the New Deal.

[Objectivist]

Um I am not an expert but got to be thinking if he redistrubuted wealth.... that is not the free market...so kinda a contradiction huh

FDR spent more than the total of the previous 150 year we were a nation. Note above quote.

[react1200]

Okay, I know a lot you don't agree with me. Know that I am in support of some of Ron's and Peter's proposals and you obviously know what I am not in support of. Please give this a chance:

http://wlym.com/%7Eleesburg/larpac/2...webcast_en.mp3

It would be awesome if Ron supporters and Larouche supporters could come together by analyzing all the information, much to lengthy and granular for a forum, and come together to fight against the powers that be.

I am sure we can go back and fourth for days, it is futile.

[Objectivist]

Sorry for not responding, so many posts. It is not stealing, to think it is stealing is ignorant although the current administration is stealing under Larry Summers. The money needs to go into creating a sustainable future, nuclear, desalination and high speed rail which will allow are kids to be productive and survive. Please read some of my earlier posts for more info. Thanks.

Stopping the needless lawsuits by environmental organizations would allow the private sector to build nuke plants in four or five years, instead of tying up investment dollars in lawsuits for ten years or more.

Government regulation causes problems, it doesn't solve or expedite problems.

[Objectivist]

And taking anything from anyone without their permission by force if need be is immoral and unethical. In fact it is stealing.

[dannno]

This depends how you define creativity. Making music while you are high is not what I am talking about. I am talking about creativity in sciences and analysis and creating things that move humanity as a whole forward.


Did you know that the DNA helix was first thought of by a man on LSD?


http://www.softpedia.com/screenshots/DNA-Helix_1.jpg


I'm not a big fan of hard drugs, but what I believe is that if people were given the choice between all of the drugs on the planet, they would most often choose the safer, natural substances such as cannabis, mushrooms, LSD, opium, peyote, caffeine, other uppers that occur naturally, and probably there would be some cocaine usage as well.. but when you limit people's choices they end up using heroin, speed and crack which are byproducts of drug prohibition. Drug prohibition causes people to use drugs which are small, easy to conceal and don't have an odor. Cannabis is large, hard to conceal and has an odor, so a lot of people avoid using the safer alternative and go with more dangerous substances because they are more highly available.

[Objectivist]

Okay, I know a lot you don't agree with me. Know that I am in support of some of Ron's and Peter's proposals and you obviously know what I am not in support of. Please give this a chance:

http://wlym.com/%7Eleesburg/larpac/2...webcast_en.mp3

It would be awesome if Ron supporters and Larouche supporters could come together by analyzing all the information, much to lengthy and granular for a forum, and come together to fight against the powers that be.

I am sure we can go back and fourth for days, it is futile.

You have yet to present a reasonable fact or information, so why bother when I and others already know what works. Fact is, government intervention into the private sector only slows things down or causes failures, not the other way around.

The government didn't build the Ford car, It didn't tell Einstein to develop his theory, or Bill Gates to develop an operating system. They sure screwed things up in our history though.

[react1200]

You have yet to present a reasonable fact or information, so why bother when I and others already know what works. Fact is, government intervention into the private sector only slows things down or causes failures, not the other way around.

The government didn't build the Ford car, It didn't tell Einstein to develop his theory, or Bill Gates to develop an operating system. They sure screwed things up in our history though.

Government setup the conditions for these things to take place. History might of been much different if FDR did not intervene. Many people would have starved to death and that is a fact because farmers had ZERO irrigation. Larouche encourages creativity the helps humanity move forward and a government that supports the conditions for this to take place.

[react1200]

Did you know that the DNA helix was first thought of by a man on LSD?


I'm not a big fan of hard drugs, but what I believe is that if people were given the choice between all of the drugs on the planet, they would most often choose the safer, natural substances such as cannabis, mushrooms, LSD, opium, peyote, caffeine, other uppers that occur naturally, and probably there would be some cocaine usage as well.. but when you limit people's choices they end up using heroin, speed and crack which are byproducts of drug prohibition. Drug prohibition causes people to use drugs which are small, easy to conceal and don't have an odor. Cannabis is large, hard to conceal and has an odor, so a lot of people avoid using the safer alternative and go with more dangerous substances because they are more highly available.

Kary Mullis had an extensive education that was afforded to him before he took any LSD. Had he done LSD early on under impoverished conditions, would he had discovered it, who knows? I know plenty of people who did LSD as teenagers that have gone mad, literally insane.

[heavenlyboy34]

Government setup the conditions for these things to take place. History might of been much different if FDR did not intervene. Many people would have starved to death and that is a fact because farmers had ZERO irrigation. Larouche encourages creativity the helps humanity move forward and a government that supports the conditions for this to take place.

The fact that you do not KNOW what would have been different is very telling. Noone KNOWS what would have happened, but we do KNOW from history that laissez-faire capitalism produces the best results and central planning inevitably fails. FDR failed miserably in his central planning schemes, and his failures echo to us today as evidenced by the failed welfare-warfare State. :p

[dannno]

Government setup the conditions for these things to take place. History might of been much different if FDR did not intervene. Many people would have starved to death and that is a fact because farmers had ZERO irrigation. Larouche encourages creativity the helps humanity move forward and a government that supports the conditions for this to take place.

The government plowed under and destroyed crops to keep prices up (central economic planning) and hid the fact that thousands of people died due to food shortages!!

The farmers and the general population needed prices to come down because there was deflation in the monetary supply. That would cause food prices and other prices to go down, so when the farmer gets less for his crops he can still go out and afford to buy what he needs.

Instead, they wanted to keep prices up because they thought that would help keep the farmer in business.

[gb13]

Kary Mullis had an extensive education that was afforded to him before he took any LSD. Had he done LSD early on under impoverished conditions, would he had discovered it, who knows? I know plenty of people who did LSD as teenagers that have gone mad, literally insane.

This guy doesn't get it.

Nobody is arguing the fact that there are many negative effects from abusing drugs. The only argument is this: Does the government have the right -the constitutional right- to dictate what substances another living flesh-and-blood person may or may not put into their body?

The answer is, NO.

Just as you may not tell someone else what they may or may not do (so long as it does not infringe on any of your inalienable rights), neither may the government. The government has no legitimate rights above and beyond the sovereign people of this nation. That is an irrefutable fact. Read the constitution.

Beyond that, it is also an irrefutable fact that The Drug War, whether directly or indirectly, has caused more death, destruction, and loss of liberty than the drugs themselves.

[ClayTrainor]

This guy doesn't get it.

Nobody is arguing the fact that there are many negative effects from abusing drugs. The only argument is this: Does the government have the right -the constitutional right- to dictate what substances another living flesh-and-blood person may or may not put into their body?

The answer is, NO.

Just as you may not tell someone else what they may or may not do (so long as it does not infringe on any of your inalienable rights), neither may the government. The government has no legitimate rights above and beyond the sovereign people of this nation. That is an irrefutable fact. Read the constitution.

Beyond that, it is also an irrefutable fact that The Drug War, whether directly or indirectly, has caused more death, destruction, and loss of liberty than the drugs themselves.
+1776 :cool:

[Melissa]

This guy doesn't get it.



Just as you may not tell someone else what they may or may not do (so long as it does not infringe on any of your inalienable rights), neither may the government. The government has no legitimate rights above and beyond the sovereign people of this nation. That is an irrefutable fact. Read the constitution.


This is what I have been trying to tell him about stealing my money for his projects. I cant come steal his so he has no rights to tell the government to steal mine but... he just does not get that part

[Objectivist]

Government setup the conditions for these things to take place. History might of been much different if FDR did not intervene. Many people would have starved to death and that is a fact because farmers had ZERO irrigation. Larouche encourages creativity the helps humanity move forward and a government that supports the conditions for this to take place.

I hate to say this but this is by far the most ignorant uneducated statement I've read in any forum so far. You really need to do some reading and I don't play chess, let alone checkers with short bus riders.

For the information of everyone please tell us who instilled this idiocy in you?

[Dreamofunity]

Government setup the conditions for these things to take place. History might of been much different if FDR did not intervene. Many people would have starved to death and that is a fact because farmers had ZERO irrigation. Larouche encourages creativity the helps humanity move forward and a government that supports the conditions for this to take place.

"The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) (Pub.L. 73-10, enacted May 12, 1933) restricted agricultural production in the New Deal era by paying farmers to reduce crop area. Its purpose was to reduce crop surplus so as to effectively raise the value of crops, thereby giving farmers relative stability again. The farmers were paid subsidies by the federal government for letting a portion of their fields lay fallow."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act

I'm sure that helped the many people starving to death. :rolleyes:

Government intervention is generally enacted with idiocracy.

[Athan]

PLEASE! An FDR solution is needed because our current infrastructure will not support current and future populations. Corporations are instruments of the banking system and ultimately are controlled by those who control the money supply (very few people with what is a fascist agenda). Their agenda is evident in the "Green" policies that they are implementing, they are for depopulation because in essence, that is what their global policies render. I am not a Larouche fanatic but I am in support of his policies since they, in my opinion, appear to be the only viable and feasible solution that precludes a new dark age and ultimately a human crisis where famine, pandemics, ignorance, drug/media culture take over. We need nuclear energy, desalination and high speed rail infrastructure around the world in order to increase productivity and decrease cost inflation.

We can't afford FDR solutions however. Our country is bankrupt in many ways because of them (not excluding bush and post FDR actions) and the dollar will likely no longer stay afloat for more than half a decade.

[Objectivist]

"The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) (Pub.L. 73-10, enacted May 12, 1933) restricted agricultural production in the New Deal era by paying farmers to reduce crop area. Its purpose was to reduce crop surplus so as to effectively raise the value of crops, thereby giving farmers relative stability again. The farmers were paid subsidies by the federal government for letting a portion of their fields lay fallow."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act

I'm sure that helped the many people starving to death. :rolleyes:

Government intervention is generally enacted with idiocracy.

AAA was deemed unconstitutional along with NRA I believe and look at what we had to import over one year.

Beef 138,283 7,684,637
Ham/Bacon 626,148 2,846,005
Butter 535,144 21,948,458
Corn(bu) 816,694 34,809,120
Wheat(bu) 3,330,188 13,446,009
Raw Cotton 7,328,084 36,353,324

These figures show the difference between 1934- 1935 because of FDRs policies. SO we could have produced our own food, but we were forced to import to keep people from starving, via taxation and policies that are not laid in a free market capitalistic system. SO in reality he created the shortage and then made the people dependent on HIM. SOunds like a Heroin Dealer.

[Athan]

Okay, I know a lot you don't agree with me. Know that I am in support of some of Ron's and Peter's proposals and you obviously know what I am not in support of. Please give this a chance:

http://wlym.com/%7Eleesburg/larpac/2...webcast_en.mp3

It would be awesome if Ron supporters and Larouche supporters could come together by analyzing all the information, much to lengthy and granular for a forum, and come together to fight against the powers that be.

I am sure we can go back and fourth for days, it is futile.

We can come together by simply tackling issues we both agree on. Ron for instance knows it is impossible to simply dismantle all the unConstitutional agencies and laws already in existance so he shoots for interim legislation and priorities.

All that we as a constituency need to do is focus on the list of consensus issues the third parties agreed upon back in August.

Also this is important, we already DO work with other folks, but you Larouchies need to plan some events we can attend and aid in. Organizing for the coming elections is something we can do. Many of us already pick the best of the canidates as possible because most are Ron Paul Republicans and supporters. But don't tell us its to promote government action because that is still something that needs to be ironed out later.

[Danke]

From http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism


Characteristics of Individual Rights

The Bill of Rights proclaims that individuals have "rights." But what does it mean to have a right? Are some rights fundamentally different from others? In the classical liberal tradition, rights have several characteristics, including the following:

Rights Are Relational. Rights pertain to the moral responsibilities that people have to one another. In particular, they refer to a zone of sovereignty within which individuals are entitled to make choices without interference by others. In this way, rights serve as moral side-constraints on the actions of other people. In a world consisting of only one individual, or in which people never interacted, rights would not exist in the sense that there would be no one to claim a right against and no one who could interfere with the exercise of any individual's rights. Rights exist because people do interact in pursuit of their own interests. Rights are also relational in another sense: They limit the morally permissible actions government may take to interfere with the lives of individuals who are governed.

Rights Imply Obligations. Rights sanction morally allowable actions. In the process, they create obligations for other people to refrain from preventing those actions. To say that "Joe has the right to do X" implies all other people have an obligation not to interfere with Joe's doing X. For example, to say "Joe has a right to build a swing set in his backyard" implies that other people are obliged not to interfere with Joe's construction of the swing set.

Fundamental Rights Imply Negative Obligations. Joe's right to build a swing set obligates others to stay out of the way. It does not obligate others to help Joe - by furnishing labor, materials, etc. So, Joes' right creates negative obligations for others, not positive ones. All fundamental rights imply negative obligations in this way.

For example, the right to free speech implies a (negative) obligation on the part of others not to interfere with your speaking. It does not create the (positive) obligation to provide you with a platform, a microphone and an audience. The right to freedom of the press implies a (negative) obligation for others not to interfere with your publishing. It does not create the (positive) obligation to provide you with newsprint, ink and a printing press. The right to freedom of assembly creates the (negative) obligation for others not to interfere with your association with others. It does not create the (positive) obligation to furnish you with an assembly hall.

From primary rights (e.g., the rights to life, liberty and property) flow derivative rights. These are new obligations that arise as people exercise their primary rights. Virtually all rights created through trade, exchange or contract are derivative. For instance, Joe owns a motorcycle and agrees to let Tom rent it for a period of time. Joe has a right to expect to get his motorcycle back along with the agreed upon rental fee. Joe's rights entail positive obligations on the part of Tom.

Rights are Compossible. Can rights conflict? In the classical liberal conception, a conflict of rights implies a contradiction. Consider two claims:

1. Joe has the right to do X.
2. Tom has the right to interfere with Joe's doing X.

The first sentence implies that Tom has an obligation not to interfere with Joe's doing X, whereas the second sentence implies that he has no such obligation. Hence, there is a contradiction.

In order to be logically consistent, therefore, rights cannot conflict; which is to say, they must be compossible. Compossiblility means that each person's rights are compatible with everyone else having the same rights. This is the feature behind the adage "Your right to act ends at my nose," and vice-versa. Take the claim that each person has a right to liberty. Compossibility implies that when any one person is exercising her liberty she is not violating other peoples' right to liberty.

This does not mean that people cannot compete to achieve mutually exclusive goals. It does mean that the competition must be in the context of rights. Put differently, there may be conflicts among people (e.g., they may be pursuing conflicting goals) but there cannot be conflicts of rights. Also, the statement that rights are compossible does not imply that there cannot be arguments and disputes about what those rights are (which is why we have courts of law). But the presumption of a legal hearing is that even though the disputants may disagree, there are objective, non-contradictory rights for the court to discover.

Fundamental Rights are Inalienable. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson declared that basic rights are inalienable. This means they cannot be alienated from the individual who holds the rights. They cannot be given away or taken away. They cannot be bought, sold or traded. They can be violated, however.

Joe can give away his swing set or sell it or trade it for some other asset. Joe can also buy, sell, trade or donate other pieces of property. But he cannot give away, sell or trade away his right to property as such. Individuals, through consent or contract, may limit their liberty to take specific acts (e.g., under the terms of a contract); but they may not give up their right to liberty as such.

Fundamental Rights Do Not Come from Government. Not only do rights not get their legitimacy from government, but - as the Declaration of Independence so eloquently states - it's the other way around. Government gets its legitimacy from the existence of rights. In the view of Locke, Jefferson and others, rational, moral people form governments for the express purpose of protecting rights. In the Second Treatise on Government, Locke argued that legitimate governments are, in fact, instituted to facilitate the more effective protection or enforcement of these rights, and may not abrogate an individual's natural rights. In natural rights theories, legitimate governments are created by consent, but fundamental rights are not grounded in consent.

Substantive Rights vs. Procedural Rights. Some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are "substantive" rights. Others are "procedural." The founding fathers were clearly very concerned with both. The distinction is as follows. Legitimate governments are created to protect substantive rights. But in carrying out this task, the government is required to adhere to certain procedures, and these requirements create procedural rights. For example, the Constitution specifies that certain government officials must be elected. This implies that citizens have a (procedural) right to vote.

Furthermore, in order to protect rights and to adjudicate disputes about rights, the government must exercise certain police powers. In our system, certain procedural safeguards were built into the Constitution specifying how the government must act in exercising these powers. For instance, the Constitution requires the government to get a warrant before arresting a person or seizing his property. In addition, for serious crimes it requires the government to provide the accused with a speedy, public trial before an impartial jury, the ability to confront witnesses and to compel testimony. All these rights are procedural rights.

Characteristics of Procedural Rights. As noted, the right to vote, the right to a trial by jury, the rights that flow from all the rules of evidence that courts enforce - these are examples of procedural rights. Procedural rights have at least four characteristics of interest:

1. They are less fundamental than substantive rights. Indeed, the reason for establishing procedural rights is to protect substantive rights.

2. They are conventional. Whether the legislature has one house or two, whether we vote once a year or once every six months, whether we have three branches of government or four or five - all these are decisions to be made. And one decision is not necessarily superior to any other. Despite the fact that these rights are conventional, many of them are nonetheless constitutional. The Founders did not want them to be easily changed.

3. They imply positive obligations. Unlike fundamental substantive rights (which imply only negative obligations), procedural rights imply positive obligations. For example, the right to vote obligates others (government officials) to provide a polling booth, set aside a day for voting, print up ballots, etc. The right to a trial by jury obligates others (government officials) to empanel jurors, provide a judge, make a court house available, etc.

4. They are the result of a balancing of interests. Because procedural rights create positive obligations, arguably, they cannot be secured without the exercise of force or the threat of force. Governments are thus empowered to make people do things which they might otherwise not do in order to secure such rights (including, for example, collecting taxes from unwilling taxpayers). For this reason, the securing of procedural rights requires a delicate balancing between the value of the substantive rights they are designed to protect and the danger of violating these rights in the very act of attempting to protect them.

Substantive Rights versus Police Powers of the State.

In order to prevent crime, catch and punish criminals, settle disputes and carry out other duties necessary to protect rights, every government will necessarily exercise police powers - powers that are generally denied to ordinary citizens. Among the questions these powers raise, here are three important ones:

1. If one individual violates another's rights (say, by committing a crime) does the violator forfeit his rights to life, liberty, etc.?

2. If the government compels testimony, subpoenas records, secures property, etc., from people who are subsequently shown to be completely innocent of any crime, is government violating the rights of the innocent?

3. If the answer to the preceding question is "not always," where is the boundary to be drawn beyond which the legitimate exercise of police powers becomes a violation of individual rights?

In the classical liberal world, people are free to pursue their own interests so long as they do not violate the rights of others. They are free to trade with others or not to trade. They are free to associate with others or not to associate. Since fundamental, substantive rights create negative obligations, one respects another's rights by not interfering with the exercise of those rights. Interference generally consists of force, the threat of force or fraud (which is interpreted to be an indirect form of force). The classical liberal world, therefore, is a peaceful world. All interactions are voluntary. A world in which all rights are respected is a world without force or fraud.

A potential problem arises when government exercises its police powers in defense of rights. A classical liberal citizen clearly has the right not to be seized or searched at random. But suppose a government official suspects the citizen is a thief and that he harbors contraband. Suppose also, that after a search, seizure and trial, the citizen is proved to be guilty. How can we describe these government acts using the language of rights?

Under certain circumstances rights are defeasable. That is, they are justifiably set aside. For instance, people who are imprisoned for committing crimes (i.e., violating the rights of others) have not lost their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; but in order to punish them for the crimes they committed, their rights are (temporarily) set aside.

A person need not have done wrong, however, to have his or her rights set aside. For instance, the same reasoning applies to the search and seizure of a person who is later shown to be innocent. If the search was reasonable and well-founded, it does not count as a violation of the innocent person's rights. Instead, those rights are suspended or ignored in pursuit of a larger objective (defending everyone else's rights).

Clearly, a lot hinges on defining what is "reasonable." Defined too broadly, the police powers of the state threaten every substantive right of every citizen. To ensure that these powers are narrowly circumscribed, procedural rights are established and enshrined in the Constitution. These procedural rights are important not only to drug dealers and mafia capos (who use them to maximum advantage). They are important to every citizen in the exercise of every right.

Rights versus Needs

To appreciate the classical liberal concept of individual rights, it is as important to understand what is being rejected as it is to understand what is being asserted. To say that individuals have the right to pursue their own happiness implies that they are not obliged to pursue the happiness of others. Put differently, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness implies that people are not obligated to serve the needs, concerns, wishes and wants of others. This doesn't mean that everyone has to be selfish. It does imply that everyone has a right to be selfish.

In the classical liberal world, need is not a claim. That is, the needs, wishes, wants, feelings and desires of others are not a claim against your mind, body or property. At the time the Declaration of Independence was written, this meant that the American colonists had the right to pursue their own interests, independent of the needs of King George and the British Empire. In time, the concept was broadened - affirming each individual's right to pursue his or her own interest, despite the existence of unmet needs somewhere on the planet or even next door.

The idea that need is not a claim applies to procedural rights as well as substantive rights. Tom may feel safer if all suspicious-looking people are routinely seized and searched. But in the world of classical liberalism, Tom's need to feel safe is not a justification for initiating force against all suspicious-looking people.

The Collectivist Notion of Rights

It is worth noting that all forms of collectivism in the 20th century rejected this classical notion of rights and all asserted in their own way that need is a claim. For the communists, the needs of the class (proletariat) were a claim against every individual. For the nazis, the needs of the race were a claim. For fascists (Italian-style) and for the architects of the welfare state, the needs of society as a whole were a claim. Since in all these systems the state is the personification of the class, the race, society as a whole, etc., all these ideologies imply that, to one degree or another, individuals have an obligation to live for the state.

Despite the fact that 20th century collectivists opposed the classical liberal concept of rights, very rarely did they attack the notion of "rights" as such. Instead, they often tried to redefine the concept of "right" in a way that virtually eviscerated any meaningful notion of liberty. For example, in his 1944 State of the Union Address, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for a "second Bill of Rights," which included the following.

* The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

* The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

* The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

* The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

* The right of every family to a decent home.

* The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

* The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

* The right to a good education.

Note that these rights are very different from the rights Locke, Jefferson and the founding fathers had in mind. Among the characteristics of Roosevelt's rights are the following.

1. They imply positive obligations on the part of others. When Roosevelt says people have the right to "earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing and recreation," he does not mean that people have the right to work hard (extra hours if necessary) to earn money to buy what they need. Instead, he means that other people (including potential employers, consumers, other workers, etc.) have an obligation to insure each worker's wage is sufficiently high. Similarly "the right of every farmer to ... a decent living" does not mean farmers have the right to work the land and produce sufficient output. Instead it means others are obliged to act in a way that insures the farmer's minimum income. In general, your "right to a useful...job" implies others are obligated to provide that job if you can't find one on your own. Your "right ... to a decent home" implies others are obligated to provide you with a home if you cannot otherwise obtain one. And so forth.

2. Each individual's positive obligations are notoriously unclear. Consider all of the ways in which you could potentially violate a farmer's "right" to a decent income. You might buy groceries on sale, or at a discount outlet, instead of paying a higher price. You might buy cheaper substitute products (corn instead of soybeans or vice versa). You might grow some crops in your own backyard instead of buying items at the supermarket. You might buy some land and become a farmer yourself - thereby increasing output and depressing overall market prices. You might change your diet and not buy the farmer's output at all. Clearly the list is almost endless, as is the list of things you might do to increase the farmer's income. One thing is certain: From the statement that a farmer has a "right to a decent income" there is no way for any of us to determine what precisely our positive obligations are.

3. As a practical matter, only government action could insure such rights. Even if you could figure out how your actions might help the farmer, you would by no means be home free. In Roosevelt 's view, everyone has the right to earn a decent income. So in the very act of helping the farmer, you might be hurting someone else. Whenever you buy from A at the expense of B, you help the employees of A at the expense of the employees of B - and vice versa. Indeed, every transaction you make - every act of buying and every act of selling - potentially violates one of Roosevelt 's "rights." As a practical matter, therefore, Roosevelt 's rights could be observed only if all of us ceded much of our liberty to make economic decisions to the government. And the amount of power that would have to be ceded would be enormous.

4. They imply virtually unlimited government power with respect to the economy. Incredibly vague rights imply incredibly vague obligations, and, if nothing else, all of Roosevelt's rights are very, very vague. Hence if government is to act as the agent for all of us, the potential scope for action would be enormous. In fact, Roosevelt believed that there was no economic decision - no act of buying or selling or producing - that government should not be able to regulate. Thus in implementing Roosevelt's second Bill of Rights one would at the same time be eliminating all of the economic rights that classical liberals thought people had. That is, implementation of Roosevelt 's scheme would eliminate the right of every individual to pursue his own happiness - at least in the marketplace.

Historical note: It's hard to exaggerate how truly collectivist Roosevelt's vision was. At his behest, Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which attempted to regulate the entire economy, based on the Italian fascist model. In each industry, management and labor were ordered to collude to set prices, wages, output, etc. (acts that today would be a criminal violation of the anti-trust law). So intrusive were these regulations that what in retrospect seems like an incredibly silly regulation made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which responded by declaring the entire scheme unconstitutional.

Roosevelt was among the most collectivist (anti-individual rights) president the United States has ever had. And not just in the economic realm. Although Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson before him had suspended constitutional rights in the time of war, Roosevelt went further than any president before or since. On his orders Japanese Americans were rounded up and forced into detention camps (for no other reason than the fact that they were of Japanese ancestry) for the duration of World War II.

The Source of Rights

Where do rights come from? How can they be defended? The founding fathers believed that fundamental, substantive rights come from nature. Hence the term, "natural rights." But they also relied on other types of reasoning to defend both substantive and procedural rights, including utilitarianism, common law and social contract theory.

Nature as a Source of Rights. Rights as moral (and subsequently) legal claims limiting government and individual actions taken against an individual or for enforcement of certain claims arose first in the natural rights tradition in philosophy. Philosophers Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), Samuel von Pufendorf (1632-1694) and, most famously, John Locke (1632-1704) argued that humans have certain fundamental rights (e.g., to life, liberty and property). These ideas clearly influenced our founding fathers and are reflected in the Declaration of Independence and other documents. While early theorists, including Locke, believed that God granted humans these rights, all of them argued that, even absent God, humans had rights and that they could be discovered by using the human capacity for reason to examine the natural laws of the universe.

The argument from natural rights is appealing when applied to broad categories of substantive, fundamental rights, such as the right to life, liberty and property. It is easy to see how natural rights theory conforms to the substantive rights listed in the Bill of Rights including the areas of speech, religion, assembly, etc. But what about the procedural rights? On a natural rights theory, procedural rights or subsets of rights and restrictions upon government action are chosen on the basis of how well they protect the fundamental rights that government was established to protect.

Utility as a Source of Rights. A second philosophical line of argument used to ground rights, and recognized by the Constitution's writers, is the argument from utility. On this view certain rights are vital because they create the conditions under which happiness, or the general state of welfare, is maximized. And because most individuals are the best judge of their own needs, wants, desires and values, the sum of individual (and cumulatively) social welfare is likely to be maximized when people are free to make their own decisions rather than have those decisions made by someone else. Thus, in order to secure human happiness and well-being, it is necessary to create a sphere of personal autonomy within which each individual's personal judgment concerning what he or she wishes to do is paramount and cannot be legitimately interfered with by either other individuals or by governments, even for that person's own good.

Theorists as far back as Locke recognized a utilitarian argument for rights. For example, in arguing for property rights, Locke observed that by allowing people to remove property from the commons and make it their own, the effort they put into improving their property would produce benefits to society as a whole.

The Common Law as a Source of Rights. A third source of rights, closely tied to the natural rights view and known and noted by the founders, was the common law. In general the law can be divided into two broad categories, the public law and private or common law. Public laws, created by legislative bodies, consist of statutes based on constitutional strictures. Private law, on the other hand, historically evolved as a result of court rulings or judicial determinations in the areas of property, contract and tort law.

"Common law" is a label used to describe the ancient legal process of discovering and delineating the law on a case-by-case basis. Historically, common law judges did not see themselves as creating law so much as discovering it. They subscribed to natural law doctrine whereby "there are natural rules of conduct inherent in humanity itself, most easily discovered by the evolution of customs of dealing. The job of the common law judge was to look to custom in an effort to discern the law that already existed and then render rulings based upon it. Over time the notion evolved that similar cases should be decided similarly and the concept of stare decisis was born.

Until the latter part of the 19th century, individuals used three bodies of the common law (e.g., trespass, tort and riparian law) to quite good effect. It is easy to see why the Constitution's authors were supportive of the common law. Its development is closely tied to recognition of the rights that they cherished. The common law is connected to the classical liberal analysis of natural rights to life, liberty and property.

Note that although the common law approach and the utilitarian approach to individuals' rights start with very different premises, theorists such as Richard Posner,9 Goodman10 and Rubin11 have argued that both approaches often arrive at the same conclusions.

Social Contract as a Source of Rights. In writing the Constitution, its authors were also aware of and profoundly influenced by social contract theory and its relation to individual rights. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that legitimate government is founded on a social contract between subjects (who promise to obey the sovereign) and the sovereign (who in return for their obedience promises to protect them from crime and foreign aggression). Locke, whose views had more direct influence on the founders, construed the contract as between the members of society who mutually promise to forego certain freedoms that they could rightfully exercise in the state of nature in exchange for security provided by a government instituted by the contract. Both Hobbes, in a very limited sense, and Locke argued that certain citizens retained certain rights even against government action. Once the contract is instituted and the government becomes established, it is expected to set up certain procedural rights and safeguards (derivative rights) to secure individuals' basic rights from violation whether by third parties or the government itself.

The basic insight of social contract theory is that government gains its legitimacy from the consent of the governed - people who have the right to form a political compact. The compact itself creates obligations and powers for both the governed and the governors. While no government ever arose from an actual social contract, social contract theory was developed as a way of both justifying obedience to the government by the governed - and placing justified limits on the government. On this view, governments are justified to the extent that they protect rights and unjustified when they either fail to persistently protect individuals from other persons violating their fundamental rights or when the government itself oversteps its legitimate authority and begin to violate individual rights.

More recently, John Rawls, among other philosophers, has brought new life to social contract theory. Rather than viewing rights as gifts from government or from God, or basing rights on utility or on principles that could be divined by applying reason to a study of natural law, Rawls argues for a social contract as the basis of rights. This is not an actual contract that people sign. Instead, it is a hypothetical agreement that rational people would agree to if they knew they were going to have to live under the agreement, but did not know what their individual positions were going to be. In real life, each of us has assets and liabilities, including intelligence, strength, health income, wealth, family relations, etc. With this knowledge each of us would be inclined to choose social institutions advantageous to us. But Rawls asks us to imagine we are standing behind a "veil of ignorance." That is, we know we are going to be born into a world and be one of its people - but we don't know which one so we have to choose to institutions "position blind," with out knowing which person we will be.

Rawls and others have argued that in an original position, absent personal biases or prejudices, rational people would conclude that basic political institutions are just if and only if each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for all. Seen in this light, the social contract position is a different way of reasoning toward people having fundamental rights to life and liberty - with compossibility built in.

[OptionsTrader]

If Ron's austerity cuts to education and health were implemented, who would help the poor?


Who "helps" them now? A large % of the population is currently poor. We have the highest spending socialist state in history and it cannot seem to "help" the poor.

The reason is clear. A system that restricts freedom, confiscates wealth, and punishes the creation of capital is incapable of "helping" the poor. Once all of the wealth is confiscated from the productive, the productive have nothing left to charitably, out of their own free will, give to local organizations that can actually make a difference. If you truly care about poor people, then downsize the fucking government, allow this country to be prosperous again, allow her people to keep every penny they earn, and allow individuals to do what they wish with their own money. I submit that if I had 2x the purchasing power that I do now, I would be more willing to give to local charities.

Stealing from the productive and redistributing the wealth to the unproductive is a system that has been proven to be a big fat loser.

[satchelmcqueen]

The church, his neighbors and his family are good choices. That is what we depended on before they gave us socialized welfare,

this

[Objectivist]

Who "helps" them now? A large % of the population is currently poor. We have the highest spending socialist state in history and it cannot seem to "help" the poor.

The reason is clear. A system that restricts freedom, confiscates wealth, and punishes the creation of capital is incapable of "helping" the poor. Once all of the wealth is confiscated from the productive, the productive have nothing left to charitably, out of their own free will, give to local organizations that can actually make a difference. If you truly care about poor people, then downsize the fucking government, allow this country to be prosperous again, allow her people to keep every penny they earn, and allow individuals to do what they wish with their own money. I submit that if I had 2x the purchasing power that I do now, I would be more willing to give to local charities.

Stealing from the productive and redistributing the wealth to the unproductive is a system that has been proven to be a big fat loser.

Fact is it's the AMerican People that help the poor, the government doesn't produce anything.

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks to the above contributing members who have helped me educate the OP. :D:):cool: ~hugs all around~

[Objectivist]

Thanks to the above contributing members who have helped me educate the OP. :D:):cool: ~hugs all around~

Send in Mistress Mandy, she'll straighten this out.

Beats water boarding....:D
YouTube - Mistress Mandy gets blocked. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjvMoZR7lXY)

[gb13]

This is what I have been trying to tell him about stealing my money for his projects. I cant come steal his so he has no rights to tell the government to steal mine but... he just does not get that part

That's exactly right. The same goes for ANY circumstance where the government assumes rights above the individual. It is always, in any such circumstance, the same exact basic argument. The government has precisely 0 lawful rights above and beyond those of the individual. A big, fat goose-egg.

[JaylieWoW]

Because the constitution was made to protect citizens from those who want to destroy society with drugs

WTF??!!

Sorry, I have nothing more to add than that... oh and pardon me for asking and I know this contributes nothing at all to this debate but..

What the heck color is the sky in your world?

[acptulsa]

LaRouche is just another flavor of Kool Aid.

[react1200]

AAA was deemed unconstitutional along with NRA I believe and look at what we had to import over one year.

Beef 138,283 7,684,637
Ham/Bacon 626,148 2,846,005
Butter 535,144 21,948,458
Corn(bu) 816,694 34,809,120
Wheat(bu) 3,330,188 13,446,009
Raw Cotton 7,328,084 36,353,324

These figures show the difference between 1934- 1935 because of FDRs policies. SO we could have produced our own food, but we were forced to import to keep people from starving, via taxation and policies that are not laid in a free market capitalistic system. SO in reality he created the shortage and then made the people dependent on HIM. SOunds like a Heroin Dealer.

the AAA helped farmers by urging them to grow certain crops. Farming income had dropped 80% under Hoover. Hoover created the Agricultural Marketing Act which loaned 500 mill to farmers. They were told to withhold food from the markets in order to drive the price up. This all was being done due to the 50% drop in GNP between 29-32. Agriculture was big business, and it was failing. someting needed be done. Once the drought hit, it threatened the very soil which allowed us to even grow food, which is why FDR created the Soil Conservation Act.

[react1200]

Fact is it's the AMerican People that help the poor, the government doesn't produce anything.

This is not about helping poor people, even well to do people were in bread lines during the great depression, this about creating an infrastrucure that supports current and future population. In previous posts I have outlined why the private sector will not invest into nuclear energy, desalination and high speed rail. Its obvious the people who control the money supply, also control domestic policy.

[dannno]

the AAA helped farmers by urging them to grow certain crops. Farming income had dropped 80% under Hoover. Hoover created the Agricultural Marketing Act which loaned 500 mill to farmers. They were told to withhold food from the markets in order to drive the price up. This all was being done due to the 50% drop in GNP between 29-32. Agriculture was big business, and it was failing. someting needed be done. Once the drought hit, it threatened the very soil which allowed us to even grow food, which is why FDR created the Soil Conservation Act.

The root of this problem came from the Federal Reserve which was created in 1913.

[ClayTrainor]

the AAA helped farmers by urging them to grow certain crops. Farming income had dropped 80% under Hoover. Hoover created the Agricultural Marketing Act which loaned 500 mill to farmers. They were told to withhold food from the markets in order to drive the price up. This all was being done due to the 50% drop in GNP between 29-32. Agriculture was big business, and it was failing. someting needed be done. Once the drought hit, it threatened the very soil which allowed us to even grow food, which is why FDR created the Soil Conservation Act.

Nonsense.

Helping Agriculture (Prices had fallen so much that it was not profitable to even harvest the crops.) Agricultural Adjustment Administration AAA FDR told the Farmers to produce less crops or less livestock. This was controversial because the Government paid the Farmers to do this. This had the affect of increasing the price of meat and crops and the Farmers were able to make a profit again. However, many Farm workers were made unemployed because there was less work to do.

The free-market will provide enough Farming resources, because there will be DEMAND for it. The government doesn't need to mess with supply + demand. They always make things worse when they do, no matter how good their intentions are. (I don't deny that you have good intentions)



If public schools taught the unbiased facts about Franklin D. Roosevelt, Americans would know that the New Deal was an abysmal failure. Roosevelt's economic advisors thought that the cause of the Depression was low prices. To solve this problem perceived problem, the New Dealers embarked on an aggressive plan to shift the supply curve leftward, resulting in higher prices, thus stimulating the economy.

To this end, and with Americans literally starving in the streets, the Braindead Trust burned thousands of mountains of potatoes; plowed under millions of acres of crops; slaughtered six million piglets; and prosecuted and fined tens of thousands of American small business owners for the crime of charging too little.

Not surprisingly, that destruction didn't lead to greater prosperity. Unemployment never went below 14% during Roosevelt's first two terms and the average over his entire reign of error was 17% causing Treasury Secretary Morgenthau to lament "We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot."

FDR devoted himself to Stalin more than five months before Pearl Harbor and his love for Stalin approached the level of insanity with Operation: Keelhaul, in which some two million Russian soldiers, who were either POWs in German prison camps who didn't want to return back to Russia or who wanted to return home to overthrow the Soviet regime, were arrested and turned over to Soviet officials.

Roosevelt's actions allowed the Soviets to enslave an additional five hundred million people under communism's cruel heal. He was not a great president: he was one of our worst.

Source: http://www.nolanchart.com/article6321.html

[ClayTrainor]

LaRouche is just another flavor of Kool Aid.

QFT

Someone on a nother forum said it FAR BETTER than i ever could.

The Difference between the Ron Paul and the the Larouche Movements.


Paul's support comes from the fact that he's the only uncompromising libertarian in congress. It's not surprising that they would idolize the man that got elected into office and stood firm on his beliefs. LaRouche's movement is more-or-less built around him. I'd be surprised if it survives him. Paul, on the other hand, is part of a movement that is bigger than himself. He isn't even the leader of it. He just happens to be the closest its ever come to actual government influence. When Paul retires or is voted out, hard-core libertarianism will live on without him just as it lived before libertarians really even knew who he was. The same just can't be said of LaRouche

[dannno]

Well not only did farmers end up unemployed, but thousands of people starved. I explained that earlier. C'mon react1200.. you really think it is OK for the government to pay farmers to stop growing food during bad times?? You really think less food is going to help the situation? There were food shortages and people died.. this is the point we are making, the government solutions have unintended consequences which end up hurting people. Anything that de-rails the free market system is going to be inherently less efficient because the government is creating artificial demand. Less goods will be produced, the people on the top will still consume and the people on the bottom lose out every time.

[ClayTrainor]

Well not only did farmers end up unemployed, but thousands of people starved. I explained that earlier. C'mon react1200.. you really think it is OK for the government to pay farmers to stop growing food during bad times?? You really think less food is going to help the situation? There were food shortages and people died.. this is the point we are making, the government solutions have unintended consequences which end up hurting people. Anything that de-rails the free market system is going to be inherently less efficient because the government is creating artificial demand. Less goods will be produced, the people on the top will still consume and the people on the bottom lose out every time.

Yea, i only mentioned that farmers lost their jobs. It's also worth noting that people died because of these horrendous policies as well. :o

[react1200]

Well not only did farmers end up unemployed, but thousands of people starved. I explained that earlier. C'mon react1200.. you really think it is OK for the government to pay farmers to stop growing food during bad times?? You really think less food is going to help the situation? There were food shortages and people died.. this is the point we are making, the government solutions have unintended consequences which end up hurting people. Anything that de-rails the free market system is going to be inherently less efficient because the government is creating artificial demand. Less goods will be produced, the people on the top will still consume and the people on the bottom lose out every time.

Under those circumstances, YES! Those policies saved the soil! Where was the free capital market during the dustbowls, no where near!! Now because of FDR, we implemented new irrigation techniques to preserve that soil, soil we use to this very day. Many more people would have died had it not been for those policies. We need to look at why the GNP dropped 50, that tells the bigger picture and the devil is in the details. FDR did much more, highways, damns, electricity, things we use today and have allowed us, and our free markets, to flourish.

[ClayTrainor]

Under those circumstances, YES! Those policies saved the soil!

Some spare soil > the lives we lost?



Where was the free capital market during the dustbowls, no where near!!

It was the free-market that was producing the food, and the resources until the government interfered and destroyed further resources!



Now because of FDR, we implemented new irrigation techniques to preserve that soil, soil we use to this very day. Many more people would have died had it not been for those policies.

Nonsense. Many people DID die because of those policies, and fewer would've if you hadn't enacted them at all. If fields need irrigation to produce a good produce, the free-market will handle it. The government doens't understand the farm industry or the food market more than the farmers and suppliers do, sorry man. You once again have far too much faith in government and far too little in your fellow man.


We need to look at why the GNP dropped 50, that tells the bigger picture and the devil is in the details. FDR did much more, highways, damns, electricity, things we use today and have allowed us, and our free markets, to flourish.

Yea, the free-market could've taken care of all of those things, much better and there is much evidence to prove it.

My own local 407 highway, private schools and clinics PROVE how much better the free market is at EVERYTHING than the government. The private roads are never jammed, the private clinics are never over-crowded and the private schools always achieve better results. Get the government out of the way, and let the capital markets take over. use the government to enforce RULE OF LAW, not your own specific liberal Agenda, or larouches.

EVERY LIBERAL HAS A DIFFERENT AGENDA, AND THEY'RE ALL RIGHT :rolleyes:

[acptulsa]

Under those circumstances, YES! Those policies saved the soil!

I live in the old Dust Bowl, son. Crop rotation saves this soil. Education does the job, not Depression-era payments for growing nothing.

[CUnknown]

I want to respond to the OP because I am left/socialist-leaning myself. Welcome to the boards, react1200!


If Ron's austerity cuts to education and health were implemented, who would help the poor? Who would vaccinate them in order to stop pandemics?

First, Dr. Paul does not want across the board cuts in education and health care investment in this country, not at all. The way you are phrasing this seems to assume that he does. He just wants the investment to come from another source than the Federal government. The new source of funding may be individuals through charity, it might be local and state governments, or it might be the private sector. It's no secret that private schools generally are better at educating our children than public schools.

Yet, at the same time, Dr. Paul doesn't want to see public schools eliminated, not at all. He does want to eliminate the Department of Education--a costly bureaucracy that only serves to harass teachers and -lower- quality of education. Talk to any teacher and find out their opinion of "No Child Left Behind." For real. The bureaucracy surrounding education is monstrously out of control and is far less effective at its supposed mission of education than local school boards. Any teacher will agree about this.

Your concern is appreciated, but slightly misplaced here.


Case in point, Mexico's collapse, which started after US and British waged economic war against them via de-industrilization and debt via IMF (as in Argentina), has decimated their health care system.

Look, Ron Paul in no way supports the IMF. I'm not sure why you're bringing this up. He wants to get rid of the IMF.


Government is not inherently corrupt if properly regulated, corrupt deregulation, such as repealing Glass Steagal, has caused much of our woes.

I think Ron Paul would actually agree with this, to a certain extent. Regulating the financial powers that be is perhaps his most important mission right now. Have you heard of HR 1207, the Audit the Fed bill? Regulation of government is extremely important and Ron Paul is a huge proponent of it. The best way to regulate our government is to adhere closely to its founding document, the Constitution.


Most of our current vital infrastructure only exists because of the New Deal (electricity, damns, super highways, etc.)

Amen, Bro. Many people here don't quite get that the New Deal had many positive aspects. But, you must admit that we can't afford Obama's New Deal. FDR didn't have the debt to deal with that we have now. We are approaching the collapse of the dollar, the total financial meltdown of our government. Obama's budget will accelerate this process. He is a tool of the bankers just like Bush was.

It would be great if we had tons of money we could spend on vital infrastructure projects around the country. How can anyone be against that? The issue is, we don't have this money, it is illusionary.


My question to Ron, how do his policies address the issues people living in extreme poverty, the disabled, the handicapped, the sick? Also, volunteerism will only work IF people actually decide to intervene, judging from our culture, and what is happening in Africa, we wont.

I think you misunderstand Ron Paul's positions on the issues. There are any number of possible solutions to the problems we're facing: volunteerism, empowerment of the States, empowerment of local governments, private sector involvement, or maybe just the simple approach of cleaning up the corruption that has blanketed the Federal government, and continuing on with only small changes (such as getting rid of the Fed, lol).

Ron Paul has never been one to force solutions down people's throats. He doesn't know all answers, and he doesn't pretend to. But he does know the problems, very well, and the major problem is the collusion of public and private sources of power, stemming from ignoring the Constitution. To solve the major problems we face, we need to return to the Constitution, sound money, and get the Federal government out of the way so local and state governments (and private enterprise) can step up.

Once we do these things, the answers you are seeking will appear through the collective action of free people.

[ClayTrainor]

I live in the old Dust Bowl, son. Crop rotation saves this soil. Education does the job, not Depression-era payments for growing nothing.

QFT!

I come from a farm-town, and every single farmer i know wants the government out of their business. They don't like being told how to invest their assets, or how to manage their farms.

They have a better idea of what they need to do than Larouche, FDR or React1200. :cool:

[ClayTrainor]

Amen, Bro. Many people here don't quite get that the New Deal had many positive aspects.

You're right, i don't get that at all, and i've done my research :)


But, you must admit that we can't afford Obama's New Deal.

Not even close

[Objectivist]

I live in the old Dust Bowl, son. Crop rotation saves this soil. Education does the job, not Depression-era payments for growing nothing.

That's right and my 1922 Cyclopedia of Farming tells that much and more, so there wasn't excuse for FDR in that realm. Some don't understand that we took a large percentage of our crop land and let it lay fallow and not part of a crop rotation. Some don't know that over 6 million piglets were killed in 1934-35 because of FDRs New Deal and we were then forced to import pig products. Someone want to tell me how that makes sense?

[react1200]

In order understand FDR, you really have to understand history (some of you guys, who are smart, don't have a full understanding of history, you look at what FDR did and criticize instead of looking at the root problem) in order to understand how we got to where we are. Ron policies are NOT the holy grail and private companies will not solve our problems under these circumstances. Any further austerity cuts to health care and social services will result in severe pandemics and high crime. Without investment into nuclear energy, desalination and high speed rail, the US and the world will step back into a new dark age, common sense really, if you do not have the infrastructure to support a population, they die. Please keep an open mind and watch Larouche speak, I PROMISE you, his logic and understanding of matters will enlighten you:

http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=10157

[acptulsa]

Any further austerity cuts to health care and social services will result in severe pandemics and high crime. Without investment into nuclear energy, desalination and high speed rail, the US and the world will step back into a new dark age, common sense really, if you do not have the infrastructure to support a population, they die.

They don't teach common sense in social studies class. Hospitals spread more disease than they arrest. Social services have been known to cause more crime than they prevent, too--depending upon how incompetent they are. Without jobs available, extremely localized power production like back yard windmills will do more to prevent 'the new dark ages' than any expensive to maintain nuke plants could ever do--these are not a cheap source of electricity by any measure. Desalinisation won't do a damned thing for my state, or some eighty-five percent of the U.S. landmass. And high speed rail doesn't hold a candle to electronic communication as far as keeping productivity up in an energy crisis--and the rail system we have is superior in efficiency, particularly for freight haulage.

Our eyes and ears are open. Are yours?

[ClayTrainor]

Ron policies are NOT the holy grail

The free-market and Rule of law is. I agree, Ron Paul has flaws, but the free-market argument is pretty much flawless, so long as rule of law is upheld.

Obviously it's not perfect, and it doesn't offer handouts to everyone with their hands out. No government can do that without first stealing from the private sector.



and private companies will not solve our problems under these circumstances.

Wrong. Government can't either. Printing money will worsen the debt, and that's your only solution to fulfulling all fo these liberal pet projects you keep telling us we need to support or we'll all die. :rolleyes:



The only thing who can possibly provide the government with enough Any further austerity cuts to health care and social services will result in severe pandemics and high crime.

OMG, if the government doesn't take care of us right away, we're going to have pandemics and HIGH CRIME!!!! :eek:

SAVE US FROM OURSELVES MR. GOVERNMENT. WE'RE NOT WORTHY :rolleyes:

It takes logic to win us over, not fear-mongering. I don't blame liberals though. You pretty much have to use fear mongering to promote socialism, and demote freedom.



Without investment into nuclear energy, desalination and high speed rail, the US and the world will step back into a new dark age, common sense really, if you do not have the infrastructure to support a population, they die.

More fear mongering based on nonsense. Turn off your TV bro.

I think you are borderline idiotic with your "Nuclear and rails" plan. I'm not even gonna bother getting into it. Go support larouche, you won't win anybody over here. We face socialistic delusions like yours every single day.


Please keep an open mind and watch Larouche speak, I PROMISE you, his logic and understanding of matters will enlighten you:

http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=10157
[/Quote]

I'm already quite confident you have a distorted view of history. Good luck to you and your candidate.

You better promote Larouche while he's alive, because i bet you're movement doesn't have the legs to stand on, without larouche. Our movement, on the other hand, will outlive Ron Paul, and continue to grow like it has since the primaries.

[dannno]

You don't get it. FDR was responsible for killing people via starvation because of his pro-government policies. I would have had him prosecuted had I been elected the next President.

You have been unable to defend your position on that even though it has been mentioned about 47 times so far in this thread.

Please address.

[dannno]

I don't expect private companies to do anything, because I know that people can progress on their own without government oversight into every little area. Let them protect us from outside forces and let them punish those who hurt others. Let them enforce contracts. Let them create an honest money supply for us to use. That is there job. There is nothing else in their job description. Anything else makes us worse off as a whole. PERIOD. It causes inefficiency and we end up with less goods being made, or goods that are not what people really need. That is inefficiency. That is what your policies are promoting. That is what is hurting the poor. This is the most basic, basic, basic of economic principles.

[dannno]

The only reason large corporations are so big and powerful is because the government has propped them up via the Federal Reserve and corporate subsidies. That is because of YOUR policies. Ron Paul's policies promote local, small efficient businesses because many businesses operate more efficiently when they are local. When government gets involved subsidizing and whatnot, then these bigger companies have more money to spend on shipping and infrastructure while keeping their prices low, so they take out the smaller competition... but the GOVERNMENT just did that, not the private corporation. You have to understand that the government props up these big corporations that you are trying to fight, so it is very ironic that you are promoting MORE government!!