Why do people group Ron Paul Enthusiasts With These People?

[clb09]

YouTube - Listen to and support LaRouche if you want to stop the NWO. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPml_ZqCcXE)

YouTube - Brazil Russia India China (BRIC) takes suicide pill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCNmHy0aW4o)

[pcosmar]

Why do people group Ron Paul Enthusiasts With These People?

Not sure, Possibilities include,
Ignorance
Stupidity
Malice.

[clb09]

My Favorite!

YouTube - LaRouche has Broken the Media Containment of him around the health care issue. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1zvoZN0Oow)

[Don't Tread on Mike]

Well don't group me in there, i want no part of that lol

[t0rnado]

Those are the mentally challenged lunatics that stand outside of town hall meetings with photoshopped posters of Obama. They're pretty much cult members who have no knowledge of history, economics, or anything else and they just use vague references in an attempt to back up what they're saying.

[Mini-Me]

I think mainstream culture just likes to lump everything that's not mainstream into the same category of "kooky," without bothering to differentiate the wheat from the chaff. Of course, people with a vested interest in the status quo will naturally encourage this.

In other words, what pcosmar said.

[clb09]

LaRouche on Paul:


December 10, 2007 (LPAC)--LaRouche replied to several e-mails addressed to him from avowed supporters of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul's Republican Presidential pre-candidacy:

"Although U.S. Representative Ron Paul and I have coinciding opinions on a variety of important matters of national policy, his policies on national credit and currency, are not only in grave error, but are fatally at odds with what I know to be the measures which must be adopted if our republic is to survive. Under what he has represented as his views on this matter, our republic could not survive the presently on-rushing, global breakdown-crisis in progress."

[Long_Lamkin]

LaRouche and his zombies are more fun than a sack of confused weasels.

[BenIsForRon]

That was so weird.

[wizardwatson]

I was a reader of LaRouche long before Rockwell. LaRouche I guess was a better advertiser on the net.

LaRouche is more wrong than the Austrians, but the Austrians are wrong on monetary theory, which sucks actually, because that's where they've convinced themselves they are strongest. LaRouche is wrong too on banking/monetary theory, oddly though I think LaRouche's solution might actually be better. Of course this is 'relatively' speaking, as both approaches, in my opinion, are toxic to the real economy.

The Ron Paul/Liberty movement has disappointed me in its devotion to this Austrian thought and education as if it is the holy grail of knowledge to be attained. We should look at its theories and axioms with intense scrutiny, since the elaboration of these theories are not only young, but have really failed to congeal into any kind of strategy. And the supposed ground-breaking work done by Rothbard and Mises in the field of monetarism and banking/credit has yielded no real fruits in systems theory or strategic theory.

[jmdrake]

Umm....were those clips supposed to be parodies? Does he really think he's going to get anywhere by saying "The only solution is mine"? And why are all 3 of his spokesmen women?

[tggroo7]

My Favorite!

YouTube - LaRouche has Broken the Media Containment of him around the health care issue. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1zvoZN0Oow)

From the video (about 5:50): "The primary form of human existence occurs in the form of human dynamics. As a specific formation of culture, is subsumed by a particular dynamic. An intelligent understanding of classical tragedy shows us that there is no such thing as a tragic individual only a tragic culture subsumed by a self-destructive dynamic. What is crucial in the case of a cultural tragedy is a limited number of people who are exceptions to that culture and don't go along with it. They're not intimidated that their ideas don't correspond to their neighbors and friends but they will stand up for them on the basis of principle. You break the previous dynamic when you break with the corruption."

:confused:
Is it bad that my brain is pulsating?

[tggroo7]

Allow me to step down to their level and present an equally mature counter-argument: "You people are wrong. Stop talking. LaRouche? More like LaDouche."

[Mini-Me]

I was a reader of LaRouche long before Rockwell. LaRouche I guess was a better advertiser on the net.

LaRouche is more wrong than the Austrians, but the Austrians are wrong on monetary theory, which sucks actually, because that's where they've convinced themselves they are strongest. LaRouche is wrong too on banking/monetary theory, oddly though I think LaRouche's solution might actually be better. Of course this is 'relatively' speaking, as both approaches, in my opinion, are toxic to the real economy.

The Ron Paul/Liberty movement has disappointed me in its devotion to this Austrian thought and education as if it is the holy grail of knowledge to be attained. We should look at its theories and axioms with intense scrutiny, since the elaboration of these theories are not only young, but have really failed to congeal into any kind of strategy. And the supposed ground-breaking work done by Rothbard and Mises in the field of monetarism and banking/credit has yielded no real fruits in systems theory or strategic theory.

Where do the Austrians go wrong on banking and monetary theory, where do they go wrong on the solution, and what alternatives to theory and solution would you propose? I went searching through some of your posts over the past half year, but I haven't found any mention of this yet.

[Elwar]

I cannot be grouped.

[Cowlesy]

From the video (about 5:50): "The primary form of human existence occurs in the form of human dynamics. As a specific formation of culture, is subsumed by a particular dynamic. An intelligent understanding of classical tragedy shows us that there is no such thing as a tragic individual only a tragic culture subsumed by a self-destructive dynamic. What is crucial in the case of a cultural tragedy is a limited number of people who are exceptions to that culture and don't go along with it. They're not intimidated that their ideas don't correspond to their neighbors and friends but they will stand up for them on the basis of principle. You break the previous dynamic when you break with the corruption."

:confused:
Is it bad that my brain is pulsating?

Sounds like something straight out of a Phish song

[The Original Gentleman]

Tggroo7: LaRouche's understanding of classical tragedy--he apparently thinks the Illiad is tragic because everyone dies, which isn't true, and that it was written by Aeschylus, which is false--is pretty warped.

[wizardwatson]

Where do the Austrians go wrong on banking and monetary theory, where do they go wrong on the solution, and what alternatives to theory and solution would you propose? I went searching through some of your posts over the past half year, but I haven't found any mention of this yet.

You may not find it here, because I haven't concentrated solely here. I've posted on forums at Mises.org as well as a forum run by Fred Foldvary that has a few Georgist minded individuals ( who, incidentally, I disagreed with on numerous points as well ).

I only say Larouche is more solid in ideas ( when it comes to money/banking ) because LaRouche wants to strip powers from the bank and fix the money system directly. Rothbard, et al, want to strip the power of government and empower people to use, and have the government enforce (at least for its own dealings) a gold standard. Ron Paul, noteably (though often ignored by RP supporters) understands Rothbard's position but does not have the same stance.

You see, I'm dissappointed in myself as well. I wish I could have seen this movement sooner, and done something while it was still fresh. And I get more fatigued when I see that everyone is 'settling in' to this libertarian/anarcho-austrian economic view instead of finding holes and contradictions and missing pieces. Why don't we have libertarian run banks? Credit unions? Community Currencies? If the problem is economic at root, why are none of our strategies economic? How much more effective is a 500K money bomb vs 10K people handing out 500K worth of pocket constitutions? What is our litmus test for effective strategies? Where is CFL? Why is everyone falling back into standard political campaigning as an effective means to achieve liberty, when the essence of the state itself in most cases is liberty's anti-thesis?

I'm disappointed and have been for awhile, not because I'm better or older or more 'in the know', but simply because I see no one asking any real questions on these forums anymore.

All I see is the same mindless......."Rand, Rand, Moneybomb, Hazlitt, Rothbard, Austrians, Education, Gradualism"...and on and on. The same kind of follow the flow mentality that we ribbed the Obamabots for.

You see Rothbard recognizes the ancient Chinese roots of libertarian thought. And he grasped the concept of 'non-action' and 'non-agression' in his exposition of this knowledge. But he did not see the whole thing. He did not see economics any more clearly than Adam Smith or Henry George or Milton Friedman. He did not see the strategic side of liberty. The "action" side of the yin-yang combo. Well, he saw it perhaps as evidenced by the little credit he gives to it at the end of Ethics of Liberty, but he certainly didn't develop it.

And developing this strategic side for achieving liberty is crucial for understanding the real nature of money. Money and how people use it is inextricably linked to their strategic imperative to 'liberate' themselves from their current economic dilemma. But none of these "monetary theorists" ever considers 'money' from the perspective of the individual in the context of providing solutions that an individual could implement. The solutions are always presented as anti-dotes to try to 'reverse the process', but on a State level or private institution level.

And this understanding can't really be grasped by reading theory. But it can be grasped through dialog. We gather information through reading and theories and stories. We 'learn' through our interaction with others.

Anyway, tired of typing, does this help elaborate?

[hugolp]

You may not find it here, because I haven't concentrated solely here. I've posted on forums at Mises.org as well as a forum run by Fred Foldvary that has a few Georgist minded individuals ( who, incidentally, I disagreed with on numerous points as well ).

I only say Larouche is more solid in ideas ( when it comes to money/banking ) because LaRouche wants to strip powers from the bank and fix the money system directly. Rothbard, et al, want to strip the power of government and empower people to use, and have the government enforce (at least for its own dealings) a gold standard. Ron Paul, noteably (though often ignored by RP supporters) understands Rothbard's position but does not have the same stance.

You see, I'm dissappointed in myself as well. I wish I could have seen this movement sooner, and done something while it was still fresh. And I get more fatigued when I see that everyone is 'settling in' to this libertarian/anarcho-austrian economic view instead of finding holes and contradictions and missing pieces. Why don't we have libertarian run banks? Credit unions? Community Currencies? If the problem is economic at root, why are none of our strategies economic? How much more effective is a 500K money bomb vs 10K people handing out 500K worth of pocket constitutions? What is our litmus test for effective strategies? Where is CFL? Why is everyone falling back into standard political campaigning as an effective means to achieve liberty, when the essence of the state itself in most cases is liberty's anti-thesis?

I'm disappointed and have been for awhile, not because I'm better or older or more 'in the know', but simply because I see no one asking any real questions on these forums anymore.

All I see is the same mindless......."Rand, Rand, Moneybomb, Hazlitt, Rothbard, Austrians, Education, Gradualism"...and on and on. The same kind of follow the flow mentality that we ribbed the Obamabots for.

You see Rothbard recognizes the ancient Chinese roots of libertarian thought. And he grasped the concept of 'non-action' and 'non-agression' in his exposition of this knowledge. But he did not see the whole thing. He did not see economics any more clearly than Adam Smith or Henry George or Milton Friedman. He did not see the strategic side of liberty. The "action" side of the yin-yang combo. Well, he saw it perhaps as evidenced by the little credit he gives to it at the end of Ethics of Liberty, but he certainly didn't develop it.

And developing this strategic side for achieving liberty is crucial for understanding the real nature of money. Money and how people use it is inextricably linked to their strategic imperative to 'liberate' themselves from their current economic dilemma. But none of these "monetary theorists" ever considers 'money' from the perspective of the individual in the context of providing solutions that an individual could implement. The solutions are always presented as anti-dotes to try to 'reverse the process', but on a State level or private institution level.

And this understanding can't really be grasped by reading theory. But it can be grasped through dialog. We gather information through reading and theories and stories. We 'learn' through our interaction with others.

Anyway, tired of typing, does this help elaborate?

Thanks for the reply because I was curious as well, but I have to say that I am still as much clueless to what you really mean as before I read it.

So what are this mistakes in strategy, and what strategies should be followed? Put it this way, if you were Ron Paul, what would you be doing?

[acptulsa]

Anyway, tired of typing, does this help elaborate?

Not much. You didn't address where the holes in the Austrian logic lie. A means of exchange is a means of exchange--until someone comes up with one that can easily (and in fact is designed to be) manipulated. So, if we don't go for sound money, how can we protect ourselves from those who manage the fiat? Or is there a third variety I'm not considering?

[pcosmar]

Why do people group Ron Paul Enthusiasts With These People?

Because the MSM groups them and people are stupid.
Not meaning to be too collectivist, but the majority of Americans do not think, they follow blindly as they are told.
It is a sad reality, and the last election is abundant proof. :(

[acptulsa]

Because the MSM groups them and people are stupid. :(

We should invent a term for the technique. How about, discreditation by association?

[wizardwatson]

Not much. You didn't address where the holes in the Austrian logic lie. A means of exchange is a means of exchange--until someone comes up with one that can easily (and in fact is designed to be) manipulated. So, if we don't go for sound money, how can we protect ourselves from those who manage the fiat? Or is there a third variety I'm not considering?

There are people designing new and alternative currency systems. Problem is everyone wants to specialize. You got the lefties specializing in grass roots currency and education initiatives, you got righties specializing in libertarian thought. Everyone's specializing and no ones trying to cross over and find the commonalities.

But forget bitching. I only bitch mostly to get attention. And usually its the same ones of you on these boards who go, "hey, quit your bitchin', we're doing what we can, you got a better idea?" The answer is yes and no. My better idea is that we, meaning the bits and scraps of 'doers' that are left on these liberty boards, and we get back into the field. Screw all these candidates and side issues which have split us up too much. Division of labor is good, division of principle is bad.

By 'get back into the field' I think we should form our own email list, break off into our own groups. No oversight, no centralization. Money bomb ourselves by State and do our own, non-political functions. The people are turned off politics, how on earth will we gain supporters by saying vote for this guy?!

Any thoughts? Is it possible to get this thing off the internet (just saw a thread with this title) and back to where we can meet each other and build relationships with each other?

And someone tell me if I'm off base, please. 'Off base' is my middle name half the time.

[ClayTrainor]

The Difference between the Ron Paul and the the Larouche Movements. (from another forum)


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

[wizardwatson]

The Difference between the Ron Paul and the the Larouche Movements. (from another forum)

I think LaRouche is a crackpot myself. I was only saying that both LaRouche and Austrian ideas for solutions to money/banking problems require game-changing solutions, and that LaRouche's ideas are less game-changing than Austrian ideas.

In other words. Although LaRouche is more crack-potted, Austrians are more radical.

People think because I say Austrians are wrong on this or that that I'm anti-Austrian. Far from it. I pick on Rothbard, because I've read him the most and I like him the most. But I have to hate him where I see contradiction, because no one else is. I love Rothbard for how masterfully he exposited the fundamental concepts of property rights. When someone tries to talk loosely about "awww, government gives you rights" then I will proceed to cut them to pieces with knives crafted from rubbing up against his genius.

[Mini-Me]

So far, all I've really gotten out of this is that you disagree with our movement's strategy [or relative lack thereof] and the Austrians' strategy [or relative lack thereof] for becoming more free, given our current circumstances. Duly noted, but I already knew that. I've seen several of your "light fires under their asses!" posts, and I understand why you make them, but that's not what I wanted to discuss.

What actually interested me were your comments about Austrian monetary and banking theory being incorrect, and therefore their prescribed solution by extension (freely competing money without capital gains/sales taxes or legal tender laws, which would presumably lead to a de facto gold standard). Can you elaborate on those particular claims? You argued that their economic theories should be rigorously scrutinized, but if you've found any specific logical or factual errors, you haven't shared them yet. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and hear you out about why you think the Austrians are wrong, but you changed the subject to complaining about inaction, gradualism, a focus on politics, and the fact that we haven't been participating in agorism enough. You're probably right, but I'm in a learning mood, not a doing mood, so let's refocus on my original question: Where do the Austrians actually go wrong with monetary and banking theory?

[devil21]

Odd videos. I want my 10 minutes back.

[LibForestPaul]

th this title) and back to where we can meet each other and build relationships with each other?

And someone tell me if I'm off base, please. 'Off base' is my middle name half the time.

you are way off base...

I am slowly, converting one person at a time with one idea at at a time. I assure you go to your job, your church, your family get together, not ONE person will have any idea what FRACTIONAL lending is. Just educating a SINGLE individual about fractional lending is a step forward. One question, why does the US government has to borrow money, when it IS the government and by law owns the money. Heads start to explode. I personally come to these forums to find new videos and information and just piecemeal feed it to others. I really do not care too much about mises or whatever other crap people put forward, I just listen to see, hey what the fuck do I do when the SHTF, which it will. I have no doubt anymore that it will HTF, unfortunately. So, get to youtube, and start emailing some Gerald Celente, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff vids.

[wizardwatson]

So far, all I've really gotten out of this is that you disagree with our movement's strategy [or relative lack thereof] and the Austrians' strategy [or relative lack thereof] for becoming more free, given our current circumstances. Duly noted, but I already knew that. I've seen several of your "light fires under their asses!" posts, and I understand why you make them, but that's not what I wanted to discuss.

What actually interested me were your comments about Austrian monetary and banking theory being incorrect, and therefore their prescribed solution by extension (freely competing money without capital gains/sales taxes or legal tender laws, which would presumably lead to a de facto gold standard). Can you elaborate on those particular claims? You argued that their economic theories should be rigorously scrutinized, but if you've found any specific logical or factual errors, you haven't shared them yet. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and hear you out about why you think the Austrians are wrong, but you changed the subject to complaining about inaction, gradualism, a focus on politics, and the fact that we haven't been participating in agorism enough. You're probably right, but I'm in a learning mood, not a doing mood, so let's refocus on my original question: Where do the Austrians actually go wrong with monetary and banking theory?

Short Answer:
They only apply their theory of methodological individualism towards the strategy of government non-action. They do not apply this methodological individualism or 'praxeology' as Mises calls it towards individual strategy outside of the domain of the State.

In other words, if the State did not exist, the individual would not know what to do for himself using Austrian theory, he would only know what 'not' to let the group do.

It is this weakness, which I believe Rothbard recognized but did not really expound adequately on, that I'm simply trying to point out. If you would like a reference, read the last chapter of Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty".

I'm not challenging the methods or theories of Austrian thought. I believe it's internally consistent, one of the hallmarks of methodological individualism, but I believe the school as a whole is too partial to the concept of 'non-action' and under-represents the individual 'action' side of strategic development.

[wizardwatson]

What actually interested me were your comments about Austrian monetary and banking theory being incorrect, and therefore their prescribed solution by extension (freely competing money without capital gains/sales taxes or legal tender laws, which would presumably lead to a de facto gold standard). Can you elaborate on those particular claims?

Longer Answer:

First let's recognize that the only real 'consensus' is that the government shouldn't control our money. But their isn't consensus on 'how' money would ultimately be structured (banks vs tokens vs points vs fiat vs commodity-backed) only that it should be inflation-proof, elastic, and it should have sufficient price stability so that A. It functions as money... and B. Arbitrage is neglible.

Current money fails on all three counts, though apparently not enough yet to pull the whole system apart. All we hear from libertarians on this is get government out of the way and it will work. The free market will figure out how money works.

I disagree with this and here's where we come to the fine points of where I disagree with the theory.

Economic bubbles have been shown to pop up even in barter conditions. This is fact. The monetary system libertarians envision isn't a group run connected system, it's a disconnected barter system of currencies. This will not free us from the bubble problem. What is needed to solve the problems with bubbles (monetary price instability), inflation, and monetary elasticity is to 'actually' decentralize the monetary system, instead of currencies battling for dominance. We have no guarantee that a more ideal 'money' would arise than the one we have now, could be worse. This is a problem with methodological individualism in general, it can't predict things like this.

Now, the only decentralized payment system that exists to my knowledge that could be used for asset-backed currencies is the one running at www.ripplepay.com, related theories and topics which are discussed

...here: (Agile Banking) http://groups.google.com/group/agile-banking?hl=en&lnk=
and here: (RippleUsers) http://groups.google.com/group/rippleusers?hl=en&lnk=

What burns me isn't a disagreement with your tactic of one soul at a time. I'm simply a firm believer that once enough people understand what a real decentralized money system is and how it would work, they will be excited at not only how cool it is, but the potential of how fast it could take off.

But first you have to care, and second you have to at least believe its possible.

I know many on here have read my "fire-under-asses" quotes. I get that we're all tired and all frustrated. Ultimately I don't care about any of these politicians or political issues. I want thieves and rent-seekers out of my local economy. True independence is economic and monetary independence. Last years stock debacle, showed the whole world just how tight those chains are.

And my door is always open for chat/talk. I much prefer dialog over this long-winded forum posting, just PM if you're interested and we could do a GTalk or something then post the transcript.

[Bucjason]

These people seem alot less kooky than Alex Jones and his followers....what's the big deal??

[wizardwatson]

you are way off base...


Well, I am off base I guess, from the number of people who tell me anyway.



I am slowly, converting one person at a time with one idea at at a time. I assure you go to your job, your church, your family get together, not ONE person will have any idea what FRACTIONAL lending is. Just educating a SINGLE individual about fractional lending is a step forward. One question, why does the US government has to borrow money, when it IS the government and by law owns the money. Heads start to explode. I personally come to these forums to find new videos and information and just piecemeal feed it to others.

I agree with all this....



I really do not care too much about mises or whatever other crap people put forward, I just listen to see, hey what the fuck do I do when the SHTF, which it will. I have no doubt anymore that it will HTF, unfortunately. So, get to youtube, and start emailing some Gerald Celente, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff vids.

But this second part is where I disagree with many liberty lovers and livers.

I'm 30 but when I was between 23 and maybe 26 I had a similar-it's all going to hell-mindset about everything, while at the same time, trying to do what you describe above and educate everyone about the ultimate cause of it all.

I've come to see this as nothing but hell-fire preaching by well-meaning libertarians who simply want to be right with themselves or God or whatever whenever the judgement for all this retardedness finally comes. Or like those little 'pill-bugs' that curl up into a ball until everything is safe again. And many in the movement when something more widespread in scope is mentioned (like an alternative currency system) they think, "good idea, but first everything has to burn, then we can plant that tree." I understand everyone is fatigued, I'm only wondering how many of us are shooting down even talking about grander ideas because we've already decided the outcome is the apocalypse.

I too believe this bad juju or whatever in our economies lives and markets will need to be worked out, but I don't see a whiplash of catastrophe the way some see it.

I'm a gradualist on the apocalypse, revolutionist on liberty. LOL