PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul: A Most Unusual Politician




Conza88
07-12-2009, 02:41 AM
by Murray N. Rothbard.

This is the preface to Ron Paul’s Gold, Peace, and Prosperity: The Birth of a New Currency.

Ron Paul is a most unusual politician – in many ways. In the first place, he really knows what he’s talking about. He is not only for the gold standard. He knows why he is for it, and he is familiar with the most advanced and complex economic insights on the true nature of inflation, on how inflation works, and how inflationary credit expansions brings about booms and busts. And yet Ron has the remarkable ability to take these complex and vital insights and to present them in clear, lucid, hard-hitting terms to the non-economist reader. His economics is as sound as a bell.

But, even more important, Ron Paul is an unusual politician because he doesn’t simply pay lip service to moral principles. He believes in moral principles in his mind and heart, and he fights for them passionately and effectively. High on his set of moral principles is the vital importance of individual freedom, of the individual’s natural right to be free of assault and aggression, and of his right to keep the property that he has earned on the free market, and not have it stolen from him by confiscatory taxes and government regulations.

Ron Paul, in short, is that rare American, and still rarer politician, who deeply understands and battles for the principles of liberty that were fought for and established by the Founding Fathers of this country. He understands that sound economics, moral principles, and individual freedom all go together, like a seamless web. They cannot be separated, and they stand or fall together.

Ron Paul understands that all three parts of this system of liberty have been under grave attack for decades, and that the main problem is the federal government itself. The government has systematically eroded and invaded property rights, has piled on ever higher taxes, ever more onerous regulations, and, most sinister because most hidden, has eroded the value of the dollar and of all our savings through inflation. Ron Paul is an unusual politician because he is not content to shrug his shoulders, to "go with the flow," as Californians say, or to go along in order to get along. He is a man of honor as well as a man of principle, and so he has, ever since he got into politics, been doing something about it. He has fought, sometimes single-handedly, for our liberties and for our savings.

Inflation, as Ron Paul points out, is caused by the government’s continual creation of new money, by what amounts to its system of legalized counterfeiting. But, if that is so, why not simply urge the government to stop the creation of money? Why not point out to our rulers the bad consequences of their actions? But Ron Paul realizes that this kind of education, or even pressure, is not going to work by itself. For we are dealing not simply with ignorant or misled people; we are dealing with a pernicious system.

Let us put it this way: give any man or group power, and it will tend to use that power. If the power is inherently abusive, then that power will be abused. Our present system gives to the federal government and its Federal Reserve the unlimited power to counterfeit. The problem is that if the Fed has the power to counterfeit, it will inevitably use that power. Why? Because the power to counterfeit is too tempting. The power to create money means that it is far more tempting to print it than to work for it. It means that the counterfeiter can pay his debts, spend more money, give more money to his friends and associates. In the case of government, the power to counterfeit means that government’s debts can be paid without levying taxes, that government spending can increase, and that political allies can be purchased and maintained.

The power to counterfeit is the power to abuse. It is not enough to urge the government to use it more moderately. The power must be taken away. Counterfeiting is fraud, and no one should have the right to counterfeit, least of all the government, whose record of counterfeiting throughout history is black indeed. Money and banking must be separated from the State, just as Church and State are separated in the American tradition, just as the economy and the State should be separated.

Vital to this necessary reform is the return to a money which is a useful product produced by the free market itself. In every society, people on the market voluntarily arrive at one or two commodities which are the most useful to use as money. For thousands of years, gold has been selected by countless societies as that money. The only alternative to a market commodity-money is what we unfortunately have now: paper tickets issued by the government and called "money." Since the paper tickets – dollars, francs, pounds sterling, or what have you – are issued by the government, the government can issue any amount it arbitrarily chooses. Counterfeiting is built into the system, and hence so is inflation and eventual destruction of the currency.

The only genuine solution to the evil of inflation, then, is to separate money from the State, to make money once again a market commodity instead of a fiat ticket issued by the central government. The dollar must once again be what it was originally until it was, in effect, nationalized. The dollar must once again be simply a name for a unit of weight of gold coin. Only this kind of fundamental reform will cure the ravages of inflation. Because Ron Paul is one of the few men in public life who truly understands the problem and is willing to fight to cure it, it is truly a pleasure for me to write the preface to this booklet.


Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, and academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

idiom
07-12-2009, 09:27 AM
He was a pretty decent writer when he stuck to economics, was old Rothbard.

Cowlesy
07-12-2009, 09:32 AM
I wonder how many politicians wish someone would write something so glowing about them like Ron Paul has had written about him numerous times.

newbitech
07-12-2009, 09:39 AM
I find it ironic that Rothbard would say,
Money and banking must be separated from the State, just as Church and State are separated in the American tradition, just as the economy and the State should be separated.


This is what the Federal Reserve System was supposedly created to do. In fact, this it the argument that Bernake tried to make recently when questioned about the impact that HR1207 would have on the FED. People who support Ron Paul seem to rail on about how the Federal Reserve is NOT the government and is a private organization.

So which is it folks? Do we want our money to be controlled as defined in the Constitution? Or do we believe as Rothbard says, money should be separated from government?
I am with Ron Paul, let stick to the Constitution and only used a commodity (gold or silver) backed currency that the government has the power to protect.

idiom
07-12-2009, 09:47 AM
The Fed is the government and operates with a government monopoly but out of the control of the governmnet. The worst of both worlds.

Conza88
07-12-2009, 10:07 AM
I find it ironic that Rothbard would say,

This is what the Federal Reserve System was supposedly created to do. In fact, this it the argument that Bernake tried to make recently when questioned about the impact that HR1207 would have on the FED. People who support Ron Paul seem to rail on about how the Federal Reserve is NOT the government and is a private organization.

So which is it folks? Do we want our money to be controlled as defined in the Constitution? Or do we believe as Rothbard says, money should be separated from government?
I am with Ron Paul, let stick to the Constitution and only used a commodity (gold or silver) backed currency that the government has the power to protect.

I am with Ron Paul. - Pity... you've never actually read Ron Paul's book...


Free Market Money? (Gold, Peace and Prosperity by Ron Paul) pg. 44


"Perhaps in the future we need to consider free market money, allowing consumers to decide about their money the way they decide about everything else. Hans Sennholz and Friedrich von Hayek argue for this system. And it existed at one time in our country.

In California, during the 1840s and 1850s, many privately minted gold coins circulated. The practice was outlawed in 1864, "but as late as 1914," points out Antony Sutton, "the U.S. Treasury was still trying to halt circulation of private gold pieces in San Francisco." Why were such coins still circulating? Because the private mints maintained higher standards than the government mint. Often, points out Dr. Sutton, they were one percent heavier than Federal issues, "to protect the user from metal loss by abrasion while the coin was in circulation."

Private mints held to a higher standard because they were protected only by their reputation. They could not force consumers to take sub-standard money by the force of law, as government can.

The North financed the Civil War with hundreds of millions of dollars of irredeemable Greenback notes, and as a result, prices more than doubled from 1861 to 1865. During the Greenback inflation, people in California continued to use gold as their money. "In California, as in other states," points out Frank Taussig, "paper was legal tender " that is, people could be forced to accept it. Although there was no antipathy towards the Federal government, people believed strongly in gold. "Every debtor had the legal right to pay off his debts in depreciated paper. But if he did so, he was a marked man (the creditor was likely to post him publicly in the newspapers) and he was virtually boycotted. Throughout the period, paper was not used in California."

Wow, very good points Ron. Thanks for the great anarcho-capitalist argument :D

specsaregood
07-12-2009, 10:24 AM
He was a pretty decent writer when he stuck to economics, was old Rothbard.

I love this book (more of a pamplet). It is less about economics and more about the philosophy of freedom when it comes to money. Not to mention a great history lesson.

It really opened my eyes and should be near the top of the reading list for new people interested in the subject.

Mises makes it available for free here: http://www.mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf
60pgs of pure gold.

specsaregood
07-12-2009, 10:30 AM
I find it ironic that Rothbard would say,

This is what the Federal Reserve System was supposedly created to do.

People who support Ron Paul seem to rail on about how the Federal Reserve is NOT the government and is a private organization.

I am with Ron Paul, let stick to the Constitution and only used a commodity (gold or silver) backed currency that the government has the power to protect.

But the difference is the Federal Reserve is NOT separated from the government as long as the legal tender law REQUIRES people to accept the FRN as a form of payment. So you end up with the worst of both worlds, a "private" currency forced upon people by the power of the government.

RP does like gold and silver as the only form of legal tender; but he also pushes to allow private currencies compete. I agree with him.

torchbearer
07-12-2009, 10:31 AM
But the difference is the Federal Reserve is NOT separated from the government as long as the legal tender law REQUIRES people to accept the FRN as a form of payment. So you end up with the worst of both worlds, a "private" currency forced upon people by the power of the government.

RP does like gold and silver as the only form of legal tender; but he also pushes to allow private currencies compete. I agree with him.

+1

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
07-12-2009, 10:41 AM
It's not what I would send someone who is just starting to look into these things.

It starts off the first page of real reading with a bad prediction.


Today, thanks to 67 years of central bank control over the
money supply, we face an economic and political crisis greater
than any we have faced before.
We probably will see widespread civil disorder in the 1980s,
as a direct result of our faltering economic system.


It didn't happen in the 80s and it won't happen now, either. I'd dedicate more time to why, but my kid's complaining about his Sugar Puffs and Dancing with the Stars will be on in a few minutes.

I'd send people toward G. Edward Griffin first.

newbitech
07-12-2009, 11:01 AM
I am with Ron Paul. - Pity... you've never actually read Ron Paul's book...


Free Market Money? (Gold, Peace and Prosperity by Ron Paul) pg. 44

"Perhaps in the future we need to consider free market money, allowing consumers to decide about their money the way they decide about everything else. Hans Sennholz and Friedrich von Hayek argue for this system. And it existed at one time in our country.

In California, during the 1840s and 1850s, many privately minted gold coins circulated. The practice was outlawed in 1864, "but as late as 1914," points out Antony Sutton, "the U.S. Treasury was still trying to halt circulation of private gold pieces in San Francisco." Why were such coins still circulating? Because the private mints maintained higher standards than the government mint. Often, points out Dr. Sutton, they were one percent heavier than Federal issues, "to protect the user from metal loss by abrasion while the coin was in circulation."

Private mints held to a higher standard because they were protected only by their reputation. They could not force consumers to take sub-standard money by the force of law, as government can.

The North financed the Civil War with hundreds of millions of dollars of irredeemable Greenback notes, and as a result, prices more than doubled from 1861 to 1865. During the Greenback inflation, people in California continued to use gold as their money. "In California, as in other states," points out Frank Taussig, "paper was legal tender " that is, people could be forced to accept it. Although there was no antipathy towards the Federal government, people believed strongly in gold. "Every debtor had the legal right to pay off his debts in depreciated paper. But if he did so, he was a marked man (the creditor was likely to post him publicly in the newspapers) and he was virtually boycotted. Throughout the period, paper was not used in California."Wow, very good points Ron. Thanks for the great anarcho-capitalist argument :D

Have you learned greek yet?

specsaregood
07-12-2009, 11:13 AM
I'd send people toward G. Edward Griffin first.

The creature? Great book but 400+ pages? Vs. a 60pg pamphlet?
Have you read the book or did you dismiss it based on an errorneous prediction at the beginning?

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
07-12-2009, 12:21 PM
The creature? Great book but 400+ pages? Vs. a 60pg pamphlet?
Have you read the book or did you dismiss it based on an errorneous prediction at the beginning?

I've read it. But I'm already a fan of Mises, Paul, and sound money, so the erroneous prediction means little to me. But that's exactly the reason I wouldn't send it to a newly interested person, or someone only slightly interested.

Griffin has plenty of things that are shorter. Paul has plenty of things that suit that purpose better too, for that matter.

Conza88
07-12-2009, 08:24 PM
Have you learned greek yet?

Yes. Have you learned yet?

No... since you still fallaciously equate ruler as being synonymous, with leader.

Which is retarded. There IS a difference. The only way you can make your position to sound sane, is to continual replace "Ruler" with "Leader", and attempt an reductio ad absurdum, but it fails - because you've erected a strawman.

It is sadly.. the best you can do.

Conza88
07-16-2009, 03:50 AM
:D

Conza88
07-21-2009, 04:27 AM
"In this murky and volatile situation, the important thing for us paleopopulists is that we find a candidate as soon as possible who will lead and develop the cause and the movement of right-wing populism, to raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic" (p. 141). - The Irrepressible Rothbard: The Rothbard-Rockwell Report Essays of Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/gordon1.html)

NYgs23
07-21-2009, 07:21 AM
We probably will see widespread civil disorder in the 1980s, as a direct result of our faltering economic system.

Well, he says "probably," not "certainly." This, I guess, was written during the late 70s, during a decade of malaise, stagflation, oil shocks...They only managed to patch it back together in the early 80s, with Volcker raising interest rates and Reagan cutting taxes and otherwise "doing nothing." Imagine if we had had Bernanke and Obama back then instead.

acptulsa
07-21-2009, 07:49 AM
Well, he says "probably," not "certainly." This, I guess, was written during the late 70s, during a decade of malaise, stagflation, oil shocks...They only managed to patch it back together in the early 80s, with Volcker raising interest rates and Reagan cutting taxes and otherwise "doing nothing." Imagine if we had had Bernanke and Obama back then instead.

They borrowed our way out of it. So, basically we did have Bernanke and Obama, though Volker had no beard and Reagan was more pale. The reason I don't see us doing that again is our credit is maxed out.

And I don't blame China for that at all.

Conza88
08-03-2009, 10:00 AM
:)

Kraig
08-03-2009, 10:25 AM
I find it ironic that Rothbard would say,

This is what the Federal Reserve System was supposedly created to do. In fact, this it the argument that Bernake tried to make recently when questioned about the impact that HR1207 would have on the FED. People who support Ron Paul seem to rail on about how the Federal Reserve is NOT the government and is a private organization.

So which is it folks? Do we want our money to be controlled as defined in the Constitution? Or do we believe as Rothbard says, money should be separated from government?
I am with Ron Paul, let stick to the Constitution and only used a commodity (gold or silver) backed currency that the government has the power to protect.

/facepalm

Conza88
08-03-2009, 11:53 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017769.html

How painful it is that Rothbard didn’t live to see this day! I hope this hasn’t been posted before, but I was so struck reading the final paragraphs of Rothbard’s Betrayal of the American Right. With just a little Higgs-style modifications (the square brackets), he might as well have been writing this about the Ron Paul Revolution:

Just as conservatives and liberals have effectively blended into a consensus to uphold the Establishment, so what America needs now – and can have – is a counter-coalition in opposition to the Welfare-Warfare State. A coalition that would favor the short-term libertarian goals of militant opposition to the [Iraq] War and the [Empire] generally, and to conscription, the military-industrial complex, and the high taxes and accelerated inflation that the state has needed to finance these statist measures. It would be a coalition to advance the cause of both civil liberty and economic freedom from government dictation. It would be, in many ways, a renaissance of a coalition between the best of the Old Right and the old New Left, a return to the glorious days when elements of Left and Right stood shoulder to shoulder to oppose the conquest of the Philippines and America’s entry into World Wars I and II. Here would be a coalition that could appeal to all groups throughout America, to the middle class, workers, students, liberals, and conservatives alike. But Middle America, for the sake of gaining freedom from high taxes, inflation, and monopoly, would have to accept the idea of personal liberty and a loss of national face abroad. And liberals and leftists, for the sake of dismantling the war machine and the American Empire, would have to give up the cherished Old Left-liberal dream of high taxes and Federal expenditures for every goody on the face of the earth.

Conza88
08-25-2011, 03:27 AM
Hahah at some of the comments here, some people never change. :eek:

noneedtoaggress
08-25-2011, 09:09 AM
I find it ironic that Rothbard would say,

This is what the Federal Reserve System was supposedly created to do. In fact, this it the argument that Bernake tried to make recently when questioned about the impact that HR1207 would have on the FED. People who support Ron Paul seem to rail on about how the Federal Reserve is NOT the government and is a private organization.

So which is it folks? Do we want our money to be controlled as defined in the Constitution? Or do we believe as Rothbard says, money should be separated from government?
I am with Ron Paul, let stick to the Constitution and only used a commodity (gold or silver) backed currency that the government has the power to protect.

Do "we" want money to be controlled... [etc, etc].

I agree with Rothbard (and Paul).

You appear confused about their arguments.

"We" want different things because of this.


And you are making a purely emotional appeal based on a fetish for the constitution, which Ron Paul does not.

“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.” ~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

noneedtoaggress
08-25-2011, 09:38 AM
I wonder how many politicians wish someone would write something so glowing about them like Ron Paul has had written about him numerous times.

Oh... they get it.

People in power get praised often. People drool all over politicians so that they can try and get closer to them and be more influential as they exercise power. Which is just another draw to it. They even constantly praise each other for their indespensible "service".

Conza88
08-25-2011, 09:39 AM
Do "we" want money to be controlled... [etc, etc].
I agree with Rothbard (and Paul).
You appear confused about their arguments.
"We" want different things because of this.
And you are making a purely emotional appeal based on a fetish for the constitution, which Ron Paul does not.

“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.” ~ Ron Paul, End the Fed


http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqh0ad4QCN1r1zi6uo1_500.jpg