PDA

View Full Version : Questions from Ron Paul Newbies




LibertarianBrit
05-29-2011, 01:20 PM
Whilst there are loads of guys beating each other up on the Adam Kokesh thread - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?295635-Breaking-Adam-Kokesh-just-got-arrested-(about-an-hour-ago) - I thought I'd start off something more constructive for people like me who are just starting out on the Ron Paul learning curve. I hope there are some other newbies out there who will help to keep the ball rolling.

My first question: Ron Paul wishes to see the USA pull out of military intervention in other countries. How could this be achieved without massive job losses in the forces?

Arklatex
05-29-2011, 01:23 PM
Those forces would naturally migrate to a called area of the economy. It is the beauty of a free market that is not micro-managed. No one body is in control, it works the best!! Nature does it's thing better than any government planners could dream.

acptulsa
05-29-2011, 01:24 PM
Probably couldn't. But less government spending on non-productive defense would be good for the economy. Though there might be a lag in the meantime.

Now, the U.S. does still have territories from the Carribbean to the China Sea. So, we'll still be deployed halfway around the world. But yes, we would strive to decrease defense spending, and yes, we believe there will be a peace dividend for it.

Not without job losses. Rather, with a transition to a healthier peacetime economy.

Arklatex
05-29-2011, 01:24 PM
PS: Welcome to the movement and the forums!!

TheNcredibleEgg
05-29-2011, 01:26 PM
Well, the military won't shrink immediately upon a pull-out from overseas. Tours of duty will continue. Soldiers will just finish their contracts stationed domestically. And think of all the money the soldiers now spend overseas which will be spent domestically.

New recruitment might slow. But with the gov't spending less on military - that money will not need to be taxed (or printed) so that money will be available for private businesses. There will be a lag. This is what keynesians always use to their advantage with stimulus spending - but if Ron Paul just lets the lag work - it will work itself out usually within 12-18 months - and the former soldiers will become productive members of the private sector. (That same holds true for military contractors.)

Sola_Fide
05-29-2011, 01:28 PM
Whilst there are loads of guys beating each other up on the Adam Kokesh thread - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?295635-Breaking-Adam-Kokesh-just-got-arrested-(about-an-hour-ago) - I thought I'd start off something more constructive for people like me who are just starting out on the Ron Paul learning curve. I hope there are some other newbies out there who will help to keep the ball rolling.

My first question: Ron Paul wishes to see the USA pull out of military intervention in other countries. How could this be achieved without massive job losses in the forces?


Good question. You have to remember that every dollar that is taken out of our economy and used to pay for the defense of other countries and general all-around destruction is a dollar that could have otherwise been put to a productive use in our economy.

You'll notice that statists never see it the other way around. They see that taking money out of the public sector hurts government jobs, but they NEVER see that taking money out of the private sector hurts private jobs:).

heavenlyboy34
05-29-2011, 01:28 PM
There would necessarily be "job" losses in the forces, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. Money spent on military doesn't produce anything. It's just a reallocation of wealth. When the military is downsized (ideally eliminated) the money currently being pissed away will be put to productive use-savings and investment by the private sector. Bastiat's broken window fallacy applies here. Certainly we can "create jobs" by building armies and starting wars (proverbially breaking windows to employ glaziers), but this "creation" is both unnecessary and unsustainable.

ctb619
05-29-2011, 01:32 PM
People had this same worry as WWII came to an end. How could the economy cope with all the millions of unemployed soldiers and arms industry workers?

Southron
05-29-2011, 01:34 PM
Put them on our borders.

Travlyr
05-29-2011, 01:34 PM
Whilst there are loads of guys beating each other up on the Adam Kokesh thread - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?295635-Breaking-Adam-Kokesh-just-got-arrested-(about-an-hour-ago) - I thought I'd start off something more constructive for people like me who are just starting out on the Ron Paul learning curve. I hope there are some other newbies out there who will help to keep the ball rolling.

My first question: Ron Paul wishes to see the USA pull out of military intervention in other countries. How could this be achieved without massive job losses in the forces?

Military jobs are more destructive than productive. Wealth comes from production.

Opportunity is better than jobs. When America was young, people were granted land holdings. Most land east of the Mississippi River is privately held while most of western America's land is still held by the Federal government. Homesteading could be allowed along with the legalization of industrial hemp which would allow people to produce wealth.

Wesker1982
05-29-2011, 01:36 PM
My first question: Ron Paul wishes to see the USA pull out of military intervention in other countries. How could this be achieved without massive job losses in the forces?

Chapter 9 here would be a good start imo, it is short:

http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

LibertarianBrit
05-29-2011, 01:42 PM
Okay, great, thanks for the responses. I've got a theory that if the military pulls back from massive spending abroad, it will actually help in the innovation and development of new weapons to be used in defensive causes, so that the country always remains at the top of the tree militarily, and in fact actually improves upon itself in terms of the weaponry available than it would have done otherwise. Do you agree with this?

Sola_Fide
05-29-2011, 01:45 PM
Okay, great, thanks for the responses. I've got a theory that if the military pulls back from massive spending abroad, it will actually help in the innovation and development of new weapons to be used in defensive causes, so that the country always remains at the top of the tree militarily, and in fact actually improves upon itself in terms of the weaponry available than it would have done otherwise. Do you agree with this?

The point is, all of this empire spending will all end anyway, and it is going to be horrible when it ends. All empires financially self-destruct. Its only a matter of time...

Travlyr
05-29-2011, 01:45 PM
Okay, great, thanks for the responses. I've got a theory that if the military pulls back from massive spending abroad, it will actually help in the innovation and development of new weapons to be used in defensive causes, so that the country always remains at the top of the tree militarily, and in fact actually improves upon itself in terms of the weaponry available than it would have done otherwise. Do you agree with this?

I agree.

LibertarianBrit
05-29-2011, 01:53 PM
Okay, next question: the prices of the services of many professional groups (such as doctors, lawyers & dentists) are too high for many people, leading them to call for government assistance, and it appears that the restructuring or deregulation of those professions may be necessary to bring competition and thus availability to more people. Where does Dr. Paul stand on this issue?

Sola_Fide
05-29-2011, 01:58 PM
Okay, next question: the prices of the services of many professional groups (such as doctors, lawyers & dentists) are too high for many people, leading them to call for government assistance, and it appears that the restructuring or deregulation of those professions may be necessary to bring competition and thus availability to more people. Where does Dr. Paul stand on this issue?

Health care costs are so high because government steals people's money to pay for other people's health care. That is why 1 asprin in a hospital costs 35 bucks....because you have government buying the health care instead of individuals.

If we had a true free market in health care where people, not government, paid for health care expenses, competition would drive down prices.

Look around and whatever industries you see skyrocketing costs, you will see government involvement.

TIMB0B
05-29-2011, 02:06 PM
Okay, great, thanks for the responses. I've got a theory that if the military pulls back from massive spending abroad, it will actually help in the innovation and development of new weapons to be used in defensive causes, so that the country always remains at the top of the tree militarily, and in fact actually improves upon itself in terms of the weaponry available than it would have done otherwise. Do you agree with this?

I think it will also improve the quality of soldiers we have, since the need for X amount of troops will go down, so there will be competition just to become employed in armed services.

acptulsa
05-29-2011, 02:09 PM
Well, we have Medicare, and it involves reams of paperwork. This drives up expenses. It also demands that doctors not charge anyone less than they charge Medicare. Of course, someone who pays cash doesn't require reams of paperwork...

As Ron Paul said on The View, with a free market you always pay the lowest price. With government, you always pay the highest price.

pcosmar
05-29-2011, 02:10 PM
My first question: Ron Paul wishes to see the USA pull out of military intervention in other countries. How could this be achieved without massive job losses in the forces?

Gee,
How many of those guys were/are weekend warriors? Guard or reserve that were pulled away from their jobs?

A better question is,, Why was the army NOT disbanded after the last declared war? within 2 years as the law requires.

pcosmar
05-29-2011, 02:17 PM
Where does Dr. Paul stand on this issue?

Two things that come to mind.
He would like to see the middlemen removed. They drive up the price without adding service.
The other is the monopolies in medical services. that also drive up prices.
A free market would bring down prices of both goods and services.

I believe he has also addresses lawsuit reforms, and insurance that adds a huge amount to medical costs.

nobody's_hero
05-29-2011, 02:51 PM
Well, for one, pulling our troops home from overseas doesn't necessarily mean a cut to the size of our armed forces. Yes, we would need that in time, but for the time being, bringing our troops home would actually boost our local economies. It is keynesian, I'll admit, but having troops home to spend money here at home (as opposed to having them spend money in foreign countries) could actually be beneficial to our domestic economy, in the short term, at least.

Edit: NcredibleEgg already said basically what I said.

low preference guy
05-29-2011, 02:51 PM
My first question: Ron Paul wishes to see the USA pull out of military intervention in other countries. How could this be achieved without massive job losses in the forces?

I think about it this way:

If a hundred thousand Americans are digging ditches, and the same amount are filling them up because they're paid by the government, how do we prevent massive job losses if we stop paying them.

My answer is that they are going to lose their jobs but their unemployment will be temporary. They'll have to find more useful jobs. To ensure that they find jobs easily, the government can do many things to help. They can for example eliminate the minimum wage and remove regulations to business and barriers to entry.

LibertarianBrit
05-30-2011, 03:54 AM
Question 3: one of the least publicized aspects of Ron Paul's mandate is the idea of implementing competing currencies, which as I understand would allow people to pay for goods and services with silver and gold. Would this be as simple as it sounds, and what impact would it have on the US financial deficit?

IDefendThePlatform
05-30-2011, 05:32 AM
Question 3: one of the least publicized aspects of Ron Paul's mandate is the idea of implementing competing currencies, which as I understand would allow people to pay for goods and services with silver and gold. Would this be as simple as it sounds, and what impact would it have on the US financial deficit?

The easiest way to explain this to a non-Ron Paul supporter (IMO) is to point out that competition gives us the best of everything else in a free market, and currencies are no different. Right now, the US govt has given themselves a monopoly on currency similar to the monopoly they have on delivering the mail. How's that working out? The Post Office continues to slip in services while requiring multiple tax-funded bailouts. Its no different with currencies. The dollar is being manipulated by the Fed (inflation and artificially set interest rates), which distorts the market (malinvestment) leading to lost productivity. With competing currencies, people would naturally gravitate towards using the most effective currency for them over time. Multiple currencies would mitigate the errors made by those manipulating any single currency, and lead to more accurate and stable interest rates and therefore better investment decisions and steady economic growth over time, rather than our current boom and bust.

Its kind of like "The Wisdom of Crowds", where any one currency will be inadequate in meeting the needs of millions of people. But multiple competing currencies allow market signals to dictate what people do with their money, rather than a single central bank.

The dollar is govt backed, top-down, soviet style central planning
vs
Competing currencies which represent free market forces at work


And yes, gold and silver could be as easy to use as the dollar. There are already places in Utah (which just legalized gold and silver) that allow people to use gold and silver backed debit cards.


IMO enacting Ron Paul's competing currency act is even more important than auditing/ending the Fed. Once we have the availability of multiple competing currencies, the Fed can print all the money it wants, people will just stop using it's currency.

acptulsa
05-30-2011, 05:39 AM
Once we have the availability of multiple competing currencies, the Fed can print all the money it wants, people will just stop using it's currency.

Of course, take the mandated demand out from under the Federal Reserve Note, and the supply we have now could be enough to make it worthless. Which wouldn't be good for bondholders. But, it would give us a chance to pay off the debt...

IDefendThePlatform
05-30-2011, 05:56 AM
Of course, take the mandated demand out from under the Federal Reserve Note, and the supply we have now could be enough to make it worthless. Which wouldn't be good for bondholders. But, it would give us a chance to pay off the debt...

Yeah, and it if happens over time it prob wouldn't crush bondholders overnight. Just lower the incentive for future bonds, I would think.

The dollar would still be the only currency backed by the full-faith of the US govt, it would just have to stop inflating or likely get replaced over time by more stable currencies.

Live_Free_Or_Die
05-30-2011, 06:49 AM
Whilst there are loads of guys beating each other up on the Adam Kokesh thread - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?295635-Breaking-Adam-Kokesh-just-got-arrested-(about-an-hour-ago) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?295635-Breaking-Adam-Kokesh-just-got-arrested-%28about-an-hour-ago%29) - I thought I'd start off something more constructive for people like me who are just starting out on the Ron Paul learning curve. I hope there are some other newbies out there who will help to keep the ball rolling.

My first question: Ron Paul wishes to see the USA pull out of military intervention in other countries. How could this be achieved without massive job losses in the forces?

I wanted to make a late comment on this. The armed forces only represent ~ 2.5 million. Ron Paul does not propose cutting defense or the armed forces. Ron Paul talks about cutting the military industrial complex which is going to be a reduction of nation building, intelligence, weapon, or other government contractors and war profiteers. Enlisted persons will still have a job with a Ron Paul presidency.


Okay, great, thanks for the responses. I've got a theory that if the military pulls back from massive spending abroad, it will actually help in the innovation and development of new weapons to be used in defensive causes, so that the country always remains at the top of the tree militarily, and in fact actually improves upon itself in terms of the weaponry available than it would have done otherwise. Do you agree with this?

I wouldn't agree with that. United States, Inc. is on a path to fiscal ruin and a Ron Paul presidency proposes to avoid a complete and total collapse of the dollar by restoring fiscal sanity:

1. End the overseas American empire to save lots of money United States, Inc. doesn't have to spend.
2. Use the savings to make domestic welfare cuts to people who have paid in all of their lives less draconian.
3. Advocate redefining the size and scope of government to constitutional limits.
4. Act on limited constitutional government initiatives with public support such as ending several federal departments, IRS, letting young people opt out of welfare and social security, etc.


Okay, next question: the prices of the services of many professional groups (such as doctors, lawyers & dentists) are too high for many people, leading them to call for government assistance, and it appears that the restructuring or deregulation of those professions may be necessary to bring competition and thus availability to more people. Where does Dr. Paul stand on this issue?

Health care is expensive because states have intervened in regulating every aspect of health care and health insurance. State regulation in every state has stifled competition in health care to such an extent it has created a clamor for federal intervention. Computers have gotten cheaper due to a lack of intervention among states whereas the opposite is true for health care. The solution to a problem created by excessive state regulation is not more regulation at the federal level. A Ron Paul presidency offers no coercive solutions to this problem other than leadership using the presidential pulpit to have an adult national economic conversation about the actual economic problems states have created.


Question 3: one of the least publicized aspects of Ron Paul's mandate is the idea of implementing competing currencies, which as I understand would allow people to pay for goods and services with silver and gold. Would this be as simple as it sounds, and what impact would it have on the US financial deficit?

A Ron Paul presidency needs Congress to repeal legal tender law to enable competing currencies. From a purely mathematical standpoint, every FRN that is destroyed... and what I mean by destroyed is converted to a competing currency and never converted back is a direct dollar for dollar reduction of a debt which is exclusively measured in FRN's.

This topic merits a thread in itself because despite that it's obvious the more money government spends in Federal Reserve Credit the more Federal Reserve Credit exists people don't understand how that works in reverse. The less money government spends in Federal Reserve Credit the less Federal Reserve Credit exists.

This does not affect the deficit directly because money spent by government is money that must be collected by government. Taking the printing press away from government means government has to increase taxes (that is what they do when they print and inflate, but inflation is the unseen hand taxing you which hurts the poor a helluva a lot more than the rich). What competing currency does do is force government to actually increase taxes every time government wants to spend money. Obviously this is not usually politically popular hence the reason the aristocracy likes the FED.

The indirect affect is the people are going to be stolen from less and government is going to naturally get smaller without the FED because increasing taxes is never popular.

LibertarianBrit
05-30-2011, 07:14 AM
Thanks to all of you who replied again. When I first started researching Ron Paul in mid-May, the first webpage I came across suggested that he was pro-abortion, which was a big problem for me. I dug around some more and found that obviously that was not the case. If abortion controls were enforced by the individual states - which is what I think RP is proposing - what is likely to be the effect in terms of the rates going up or down, especially for late term abortions? Or is this impossible to predict?

Tonewah
05-30-2011, 07:15 AM
My first question: Ron Paul wishes to see the USA pull out of military intervention in other countries. How could this be achieved without massive job losses in the forces?

At our 2009 Tea Party, some Hillary come Obama supporters posed that very question as they attempted to launch a counter-protest. I couldn't believe what I was hearing, coming from the alleged 'left'. After I recovered from my incredulity, I was like, "They'll come home and help us rebuild our economy!"

Truly, some of the best minds are being wasted on logistics for war. Instead of shipping materials and people overseas to be destroyed or to destroy, we could be shipping materials over there for them to BUY.

acptulsa
05-30-2011, 07:17 AM
Pretty much impossible to predict. Certainly women in certain states will have more difficulty getting them for free at the expense of taxpayers--the majority of which feel it's just wrong, in the case of these states.

Travlyr
05-30-2011, 07:24 AM
Question 3: one of the least publicized aspects of Ron Paul's mandate is the idea of implementing competing currencies, which as I understand would allow people to pay for goods and services with silver and gold. Would this be as simple as it sounds, and what impact would it have on the US financial deficit?

I don't see how the deficit can be paid in real dollars.

Utah has already implemented gold and silver as currencies competing with Federal Reserve notes. They are leading the States in how the transition from fiat to real needs to happen.
You can read a summary of the plan here (http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/7258-mending-our-monetary-maladies).

Live_Free_Or_Die
05-30-2011, 07:42 AM
I don't see how the deficit can be paid in real dollars.

The deficit does not represent money. The deficit represents the ability of United States, Inc. to tax your future labor measured in dollars.

Travlyr
05-30-2011, 07:47 AM
The deficit does not represent money. The deficit represents the ability of United States, Inc. to tax your future labor measured in dollars.

It's not my deficit or debt, and I do not intend to help "pay it."

Live_Free_Or_Die
05-30-2011, 08:06 AM
It's not my deficit or debt, and I do not intend to help "pay it."

It's not my deficit either and I do not intend to help "pay it" so long as I am threatened with violence to "pay it." However, I think it would be very unwise for America to repudiate a debt it's citizenry voted for through their representatives. In the grand cosmic scale of things, debtors in default is dishonor. Nor do I think it would be wise to fully "pay it."

In other words... if I was appointed wise overlord there would be a deal of shared responsibility struck between the conspiracy of money changers who have perpetuated the fraud and the citizens who allowed themselves to be deceived from negligence in the pursuit of truth.

sailingaway
05-30-2011, 08:09 AM
Whilst there are loads of guys beating each other up on the Adam Kokesh thread - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?295635-Breaking-Adam-Kokesh-just-got-arrested-(about-an-hour-ago) - I thought I'd start off something more constructive for people like me who are just starting out on the Ron Paul learning curve. I hope there are some other newbies out there who will help to keep the ball rolling.

My first question: Ron Paul wishes to see the USA pull out of military intervention in other countries. How could this be achieved without massive job losses in the forces?


His practical first steps don't dive headfirst to the ultimate goal, given dislocation. However he has noted that even if all our forces, for now, were simply quartered here at home, say on the border where the drug cartels have created a war zone, their spending their wages here rather than abroad would be a HUGE stimulus to our economy in the short run, leading to jobs to support their buying, leading to more need for employees just as soldiers are released back into the job market....etc. You can't jump from all to nothing in a heartbeat, but you need to know where you are going and why, which is why he spends so much of his time talking about the overall philosophy. A bunch of military have contractual terms of service, in any event. But if you look up his 'next steps' they are practical. They aren't without some pain, but no way exists that is without some pain. The question is whether you keep going as you are and let everything fail at once, or deal with it proactively.

Jim Casey
05-30-2011, 08:11 AM
Put them on our borders.
The only direct answer to the first question. Ron Paul could build the alligator infested moat that Obama eschews.

sailingaway
05-30-2011, 08:20 AM
Okay, next question: the prices of the services of many professional groups (such as doctors, lawyers & dentists) are too high for many people, leading them to call for government assistance, and it appears that the restructuring or deregulation of those professions may be necessary to bring competition and thus availability to more people. Where does Dr. Paul stand on this issue?

Ron has some good videos on that. you have to go back to before government forced 'managed care' on people. Prices were low. When medical care became insulated from the free market through 'pre paid service' plans and government third party payers, and people stopped being sensitive to price, costs skyrocketed. Rand Paul, Ron's son, points out that the one area of his practice where prices are always going down and innovation to achieve that always continues, is in lazik surgery....which is not covered by any insurance.

Ron came out with a great health plan with health savings accounts (before tax deposit, accrues interest tax free, amounts spent from it (or otherwise) get complete tax credit if spent on any medical care including insurance, and anything you don't spend rolls into your retirement account, to make people sensitive to prices. You could add in a health care for the poor element by giving a minimal payment amount regardless of need into the account that would still be reallocation of wealth, but by being something that could roll over into a retirement account would at least make the people who got it price sensitive and sensitive to using care when they don't need it, as they are not now. But that last bit is mine.) He also thinks doctors should be able to negotiate with patients for contracts and get 'adverse outcome' insurance so if something goes wrong in a surgery it can be insured so the patient is covered in case something goes wrong but would not potentially be getting windfall sympathy judgments which drive so much litigation, and so much money going to attorneys.

Travlyr
05-30-2011, 08:26 AM
It's not my deficit either and I do not intend to help "pay it" so long as I am threatened with violence to "pay it." However, I think it would be very unwise for America to repudiate a debt it's citizenry voted for through their representatives. In the grand cosmic scale of things, debtors in default is dishonor. Nor do I think it would be wise to fully "pay it."

In other words... if I was appointed wise overlord there would be a deal of shared responsibility struck between the conspiracy of money changers who have perpetuated the fraud and the citizens who allowed themselves to be deceived from negligence in the pursuit of truth.

The entire fiat economy is a ponzi scheme. To whom do we "owe" this "debt"? Bondholders bought into the fraud with hopes of taking advantage of the indoctrinated people. The publicly schooled populace were at a total disadvantage because this dishonest wealth transferring scheme has been handed down through the ages by the very same elite who will benefit by "paying" the "debts."

Repudiating the debt is not dishonorable in a system of dishonesty. Debt is not even real in a fake system of fraud.

The world provides abundance. When this all shakes out, I am in favor of wiping the slate clean, stopping violence when possible, offering the available world's resources up to a lottery system, and making sure that people get basic necessities met while teaching them how to fish.

sailingaway
05-30-2011, 08:27 AM
Re competing currency essentially he is saying you shouldn't be taxed on gold or silver if you want to hold your money in that, and the price goes up only by virtue of the fact that the dollar has been devalued through printing. This would keep the Fed more honest because 'its' money would be competing with hard money, and people would stop accepting it if they kept devaluing it as compared to gold and silver. It wouldn't actually have an impact on the deficit since the dollar would be pegged to the current value of gold/silver, but it would keep the dollar from being depreciated FURTHER going forward.


Thanks to all of you who replied again. When I first started researching Ron Paul in mid-May, the first webpage I came across suggested that he was pro-abortion, which was a big problem for me. I dug around some more and found that obviously that was not the case. If abortion controls were enforced by the individual states - which is what I think RP is proposing - what is likely to be the effect in terms of the rates going up or down, especially for late term abortions? Or is this impossible to predict?

I think late term abortions aren't popular anywhere. But a couple of states that already have them still would. I honestly don't see that changing. What would change is that about half of our states or more would stop allowing abortion or only allow it in cases where the mother was at risk.

sailingaway
05-30-2011, 08:38 AM
The world provides abundance. When this all shakes out, I am in favor of wiping the slate clean, stopping violence when possible, offering the world's resources up to a lottery system, and making sure that people get basic necessities met while teaching them how to fish.

The world no where near provides abundance. Take a look at the UN population projections.

acptulsa
05-30-2011, 08:39 AM
The abortion issue doesn't mean a whole lot in practical terms, despite the effect it has had on politics over the last twenty years. In the end, the Supreme Court has spoken and the only way to overturn Roe v. Wade is with a Constitutional amendment. And the president can't do that by himself.

sailingaway
05-30-2011, 08:41 AM
The abortion issue doesn't mean a whole lot in practical terms, despite the effect it has had on politics over the last twenty years. In the end, the Supreme Court has spoken and the only way to overturn Roe v. Wade is with a Constitutional amendment. And the president can't do that by himself.

By himself a president can stop the 'interpretation' of aid that provides funding for foreign aid to perform abortions, and can veto bills with abortion funding etc. However, the numbers are split enough on this point I could see Ron's law removing abortion from jurisdiction of federal courts going through. Then only state courts could determine if it were ok.

Travlyr
05-30-2011, 08:49 AM
The world no where near provides abundance. Take a look at the UN population projections.

The only shortages on this Earth is shortage of education. Population problems can be solved in just a generation or two.

There are millions upon millions of acres of land with water nearby sitting idle that can be used. Efficient methods of production can be improved, and they would be improved through competition.

The power elite are creating shortages. The world provides abundance.

S.Shorland
05-30-2011, 08:54 AM
Part 2 of Bastiat's 'What Is Seen And What Is Unseen' deals specifically with demobilization.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#Chapter 1

Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is a must read for any Libertarian.It's available in PDF form for free on the web somewhere.
Capitalism:The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand is another good one.

Jim Casey
05-30-2011, 09:01 AM
The world no where near provides abundance. Take a look at the UN population projections.
With desalinization plants, vertical farming, deep geothermal drilling, cities on the oceans, and polar storage of dried food we could greatly increase the carrying capacity of the earth in terms of population levels. We may very well live to see the day where there are 100 billion surviving and thriving people on earth.

sailingaway
05-30-2011, 09:48 AM
With desalinization plants, vertical farming, deep geothermal drilling, cities on the oceans, and polar storage of dried food we could greatly increase the carrying capacity of the earth in terms of population levels. We may very well live to see the day where there are 100 billion surviving and thriving people on earth.

Yuck for lack of elbow room and peaceful outdoor vistas....

but it sounds like you two have looked into this more than I have. I just blanched at the raw numbers.

Travlyr
05-30-2011, 10:02 AM
Yuck for lack of elbow room and peaceful outdoor vistas....

Yuk for sure. :)

I'm pretty sure I will not live to see the day of 100 billion people in this world, but I do believe the Earth has the potential to sustain that many people with a high quality of life if it was desired.

LibertarianBrit
05-30-2011, 11:22 AM
Keeping on the subject of the environment then, it is obvious that the current statist approach to the environment (beg to the government hard and long enough and hope it will stop pollution) is a fraud, and that all of the biggest environmental disasters have been caused by governments, on government land, or by government being in collusion with big business (e.g. the oil spill disasters). Private property owners do not like their land being polluted with sewage, chemicals, nuclear waste, smoke or pretty much anything else. Selling off public land to responsible private landowners is pretty much straightforward. But what about the ocean bed and coastal areas? Statist environmentalists laugh at the idea of seabed being privatized. How, if at all, could this be accomplished, yet still give seafarers access rights etc?

Jim Casey
05-30-2011, 12:13 PM
Keeping on the subject of the environment then, it is obvious that the current statist approach to the environment (beg to the government hard and long enough and hope it will stop pollution) is a fraud, and that all of the biggest environmental disasters have been caused by governments, on government land, or by government being in collusion with big business (e.g. the oil spill disasters). Private property owners do not like their land being polluted with sewage, chemicals, nuclear waste, smoke or pretty much anything else. Selling off public land to responsible private landowners is pretty much straightforward. But what about the ocean bed and coastal areas? Statist environmentalists laugh at the idea of seabed being privatized. How, if at all, could this be accomplished, yet still give seafarers access rights etc?
It would be no easy task to privatize the seabeds. Property claims in that regards have always been decided upon through naval superiority.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3LerLGezZ0

And back to the carrying capacity of the earth tangent we were on, I didn't even mention the kind of sperm sorting technology that could result in a population of some 90% or more females. It would be efficient to simply give all males the same name as their biological father with nothing more than a numerical suffix attached in order to simplify the genealogical chronology. A larger proportion of females within the population could result in faster population growth.

sailingaway
05-30-2011, 12:26 PM
I don't think privatizing sea beds will happen outside continental shelves. And I agree access is vital. I don't know the answer to that one. But if it ends up going to shore or to the continental shelf I do think it is hurting someone's property. I'd have to look into that and think about it. At some point it might actually be a national security issue -- such as if some country wanted to dump nuclear waste up current of your country for example, it is a personal property issue, but it might take the government to resolve. Ron isn't an anarchist. Small government doesn't mean NO government. There will likely still be residual areas where it is needed beyond defense, but I really haven't thought about sea beds and I don't know if this is one of those areas or not.

sailingaway
05-30-2011, 12:28 PM
It would be no easy task to privatize the seabeds. Property claims in that regards have always been decided upon through naval superiority.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3LerLGezZ0

And back to the carrying capacity of the earth tangent we were on, I didn't even mention the kind of sperm sorting technology that could result in a population of some 90% or more females. It would be efficient to simply give all males the same name as their biological father with nothing more than a numerical suffix attached in order to simplify the genealogical chronology. A larger proportion of females within the population could result in faster population growth.

It is beginning to sound as if you were rooting for such a result...

Perhaps it is the 90% female population part that appeals to you....

Jim Casey
05-30-2011, 12:59 PM
It is beginning to sound as if you were rooting for such a result...

Perhaps it is the 90% female population part that appeals to you....
Indeed I do intend to be very liberal with my productive sperm donations within a suitable societal architecture.

LibertarianBrit
05-30-2011, 01:52 PM
Now to a very thorny issue. US Libertarians have been attacked because they support freedom in so many areas, but not in regards to immigration. My own take on this comes from what has happened in the UK. The New Labour government from 1997 to 2010 allowed millions of immigrants onto our shores with the objective of feeding big business with cheap labour and to change the nature of the electorate, as immigrants are far more likely to vote for a party that advocates more forcible redistribution of wealth than one that advocates less. They also have a higher birth rate, meaning that even if immigration is reduced by a rival party coming to power, there will still be a significant effect on future voting patterns. I believe that the existing population in any country should have the biggest say in the national character of that country. Some people might say that this is not very libertarian. What is your take on this?

Travlyr
05-30-2011, 02:04 PM
If there is no ability of the government to redistribute wealth, then it wouldn't matter much who they vote for, would it?

sailingaway
05-30-2011, 02:10 PM
Now to a very thorny issue. US Libertarians have been attacked because they support freedom in so many areas, but not in regards to immigration. My own take on this comes from what has happened in the UK. The New Labour government from 1997 to 2010 allowed millions of immigrants onto our shores with the objective of feeding big business with cheap labour and to change the nature of the electorate, as immigrants are far more likely to vote for a party that advocates more forcible redistribution of wealth than one that advocates less. They also have a higher birth rate, meaning that even if immigration is reduced by a rival party coming to power, there will still be a significant effect on future voting patterns. I believe that the existing population in any country should have the biggest say in the national character of that country. Some people might say that this is not very libertarian. What is your take on this?

Look at Ron's book, he hasn't expounded further. But he believes (as do I) that a country has the moral right to its sovereignty including who comes and goes, as a bottom line. The question then is what does the country want. He lays out his personal thoughts in his book. YOu are more likely to get the widespread views of his various supporters asking here.

And Ron doesn't worry about the 'libertarian' label. As for me, I am not going to be controlled by it either, I believe what I believe. He calls himself a Constitutional conservative, and he is clearly a paleoconservative. The libertarian party here grew up when paleos found less scope within the GOP after the influx of neoconservatives etc. Ron stayed in the party except for one run for President in 1988. Within libertarianism there is a divide on this issue, until publicly funded education etc no longer exists, at least.

Live_Free_Or_Die
05-30-2011, 06:20 PM
Now to a very thorny issue. US Libertarians have been attacked because they support freedom in so many areas, but not in regards to immigration. My own take on this comes from what has happened in the UK. The New Labour government from 1997 to 2010 allowed millions of immigrants onto our shores with the objective of feeding big business with cheap labour and to change the nature of the electorate, as immigrants are far more likely to vote for a party that advocates more forcible redistribution of wealth than one that advocates less. They also have a higher birth rate, meaning that even if immigration is reduced by a rival party coming to power, there will still be a significant effect on future voting patterns. I believe that the existing population in any country should have the biggest say in the national character of that country. Some people might say that this is not very libertarian. What is your take on this?

I personally believe Ron Paul knows the constitutional, economical, and morally correct position is to enable people to freely contract, trade, and travel God's green earth but politically tip toes across the immigration issue.

The poor economics of protectionism or restrictive borders is well settled. There is nothing to debate about the economics of enabling contracts, trade, and travel or restricting it.

From a constitutional position the federal political subdivision has not been delegated the authority to regulate visitors or tourists.

Article 1, section 8 of the constitution states "rule of naturalization" and "laws of bankruptcy"

The difference between a rule and law is police power (go look up the definition of the words in a 17th or 18th century dictionary). For instance in a bankruptcy police power might need to be used to redistribute your stuff. Under a rule of allegiance, if you meet the rule you demonstrate the evidence to prove you meet the rule.

Borders are not defined in the federal political subdivision constitution or the U.S. Code. Borders are defined in state constitutions and the federal political subdivision has no authority to enforce trespassing using police powers inside state borders.

If you really want an in depth elaboration of all of the constitutional aspects there are several previous threads.

The moral position is self evident. No one owns land because no one created land. It is morally wrong to restrict the natural right of people to travel land that no one owns if no one is injured or no property is damaged. The only thing that is "owned" with regards to land is a contract... specifically a "border contract". That is what a deed is a border contract.

The argument Ron has been most vocal about is the matter of allegiance. The constitution was never intended to provide the children of aliens eligibility for the office of president. Ron has always advocated ending automatic birth right citizenship.

Historically England and France had different positions on citizenship from birth. You can look into Blackstone's commentary on English law to understand the common law understanding of citizenship in 1776. The main concerns at the constitution convention were preventing people still loyal to the crown still in the colonies after the revolution from becoming president.

Whether people want to acknowledge it or not because it is politically incorrect... discrimination is the only peaceful tool free people have to self police allegiance. The way free people self police allegiance is discriminating in contracts.

States regulate the land ownership of aliens. It is up to each state to enforce trespassing of visitors and tourists at state borders. One of the problems of government creating privileges is equality in enforcement. When things are left in the private domain there is no equality requirement placed upon private contracts. The constitution guarantees the unlimited right to contract.

There are several things that have compounded the allegiance problem over the years. Federal voting, jury selection, driver licensing, etc. This topic is so vast and to really understand Ron Paul's statements on immigration a full endeavor on the history of allegiance must be undertaken.

To me Ron Paul comes across as someone who knows what the correct economical, constitutional, and moral position is but feels the time is not ripe for an outright political endorsement of the correct position. Immigration has never been Ron Paul's pet issue. The FED is Ron Paul's lifetime endeavor. Getting rid of the printing press and restoring sound currency is the legacy of Ron Paul. Ron Paul has chosen his battle wisely and has hacked at the roots of the tree choosing to take on the FED.

So all that said... if we go back to 1988 Ron Paul openly endorsed the correct position. In 2008 Ron Paul's position was he might be receptive to limited federal intervention of borders until the welfare state is addressed. Ron Paul has stated in 2008 he feels an open border policy while the welfare state is in fiscal crisis does not help.

I personally disagree with Ron Paul on federal intervention because if the ball is already closer to the liberty goal post why move the ball back the other way? However I don't really beat Ron Paul up about his position because I find it extremely difficult to believe Ron Paul would support implementing a long term police state or Nazi Germany solution. There hasn't been a serious national dialogue about emigration, immigration, and allegiance yet. There likely won't be one in the short term because the top national priority is the economics of money.

Southron
05-30-2011, 06:46 PM
Now to a very thorny issue. US Libertarians have been attacked because they support freedom in so many areas, but not in regards to immigration. My own take on this comes from what has happened in the UK. The New Labour government from 1997 to 2010 allowed millions of immigrants onto our shores with the objective of feeding big business with cheap labour and to change the nature of the electorate, as immigrants are far more likely to vote for a party that advocates more forcible redistribution of wealth than one that advocates less. They also have a higher birth rate, meaning that even if immigration is reduced by a rival party coming to power, there will still be a significant effect on future voting patterns. I believe that the existing population in any country should have the biggest say in the national character of that country. Some people might say that this is not very libertarian. What is your take on this?

There is nothing wrong with controlling immigration. Don't let so-called libertarian purity make you change your stance.

If you take your ideological consistency the the point that it is self destructive to your original aims, then what have you gained?

There is no right to citizenship.

Live_Free_Or_Die
05-30-2011, 07:29 PM
There is nothing wrong with controlling immigration. Don't let so-called libertarian purity make you change your stance.

If you take your ideological consistency the the point that it is self destructive to your original aims, then what have you gained?

There is no right to citizenship.

Where has the authority to regulate "immigration" been delegated in the Constitution?
Where does the word "immigration" appear in the Constitution.

What is the definition of "immigration?" Are you referring to an act of changing allegiance or the movement of people and meant to use the phrase "regulate emigration" which is also not delegated in the Constitution?

Travlyr
05-31-2011, 11:25 AM
Interesting and insightful post -



Borders are not defined in the federal political subdivision constitution or the U.S. Code. Borders are defined in state constitutions and the federal political subdivision has no authority to enforce trespassing using police powers inside state borders.

If you really want an in depth elaboration of all of the constitutional aspects there are several previous threads.

The moral position is self evident. No one owns land because no one created land. It is morally wrong to restrict the natural right of people to travel land that no one owns if no one is injured or no property is damaged. The only thing that is "owned" with regards to land is a contract... specifically a "border contract". That is what a deed is a border contract.
...

States regulate the land ownership of aliens. It is up to each state to enforce trespassing of visitors and tourists at state borders. One of the problems of government creating privileges is equality in enforcement. When things are left in the private domain there is no equality requirement placed upon private contracts. The constitution guarantees the unlimited right to contract.


Land ownership is key to wealth because if one "owns" land, then he/she has advanced opportunity to enjoy life above and beyond subsistence by producing goods and services using the Earth's resources. Yet, land cannot be "owned?" A contract to the rights of the resources being bounded by survey methods does not constitute "ownership"? Ownership of land is not moral? Why is it not moral?

Southron
05-31-2011, 01:28 PM
Where has the authority to regulate "immigration" been delegated in the Constitution?
Where does the word "immigration" appear in the Constitution.

What is the definition of "immigration?" Are you referring to an act of changing allegiance or the movement of people and meant to use the phrase "regulate emigration" which is also not delegated in the Constitution?

I was responding to the Brit. He is not bound by our Constitution. And I'm not talking about legal authority, but rather, moral authority.

AGRP
05-31-2011, 01:40 PM
War is important because of the jobs?

The bigger question is if they believe its lawful for people to literally have murderous careers.

Live_Free_Or_Die
05-31-2011, 05:00 PM
Land ownership is key to wealth because if one "owns" land, then he/she has advanced opportunity to enjoy life above and beyond subsistence by producing goods and services using the Earth's resources. Yet, land cannot be "owned?" A contract to the rights of the resources being bounded by survey methods does not constitute "ownership"? Ownership of land is not moral? Why is it not moral?

I have never used the phrase "land ownership" or "dirt ownership" and I consider it a separate concept from "property ownership." Property is the result of mixing labor with land. Ownership of property is derived from action. On undeveloped land is there any labor expended to survey borders or other resources of the border contract (ie. deed)?

I think if you look into American common law roots it will become self evident that dirt is not what is owned. The principle that no one created land, therefore dirt is not owned is further evidenced by easements and a duty of care under common law.

You just can't go shooting people who trespass that pose no threat to your well being under common law. A non-violent, non-threatening, non-injuring, non-damaging trespass is not criminal in nature, it is civil (ie. the remedy is equitable, not penal).


The common law provides various means whereby an owner of landlocked property might assert a right to an easement over the land of another for the purpose of highway access.Some examples are provided in Tricker v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission:

. . . An easement by implication may be acquired where the intent of the parties is clearly demonstrated by the terms of the grant, the surrounding property and other [things done regarding] the transaction

. . . . In Pennsylvania, to determine whether an easement by implication has been created, three essential elements must exist for the creation of an easement by implication upon the severance of the unity of ownership in an estate:

1. a separation of title;
2. prior to the separation of title, that the use which gave rise to the easement had been so long continued and so obvious or manifest as to show that it was meant to be permanent; and
3. the easement was necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of the land granted or retained.

. . . An easement by necessity is created when, after severance from an adjoining property, a piece of land is without access to a public highway. . . .

To establish that an “easement by necessity” has been created, a property owner must prove:
1. the titles to the property in question and the property over which the alleged easement exists had once been held by one person;
2. this unity of title had been severed by a conveyance of one of the tracts; and
3. the easement was necessary in order for the owner of the property in question to use his land, with the necessity existing both at the time of the severance and at the time of the exercise of the easement.

. . . Just as is required for an easement by implication, an easement by necessity also requires that there be “unity of ownership” of both the property that must be accessed and the property over which the easement allegedly lies . . . .

. . . An easement by prescription is created by adverse, open, continuous, notorious, and uninterrupted use of land for the prescriptive period – in Pennsylvania, that period is for 21 years . . . .

In English tort law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_tort_law), an individual may be owed a duty of care by another, to ensure that they do not suffer any unreasonable harm or loss. If such a duty is found to be breached (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_duty_in_English_law), a legal liability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_liability) is imposed upon the duty-ower, to compensate the victim for any losses they incur. The idea of individuals owing strangers a duty of care – where beforehand such duties were only found from contractual arrangements – developed at common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law), throughout the 20th century. Its origins can be found in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care_in_English_law#cite_note-0) where a woman succeeded in establishing a manufacturer of ginger beer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginger_beer) owed her a duty of care, where it had been negligently produced. Following this, the duty concept has expanded into a coherent judicial test, which must be satisfied in order to claim in negligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence).

Generally, a duty of care arises where one individual or group undertakes an activity which could reasonably harm another, either physically, mentally, or economically. This includes common activities such as driving (where physical injury may occur), as well as specialised activities such as dispensing reliant economic advice (where economic loss may occur). Where an individual has not created a situation which may cause harm, no duty of care exists to warn others of dangerous situations or prevent harm occurring to them; such acts are known as pure omissions, and liability may only arise where a prior special relationship exists to necessitate them.Now, just in case people do not think common law is still relevant let me insert Chapter 2 of the Florida Statues:


2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.—The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.
Granted this is only applicable to Florida but I doubt Florida is the only state in the union that refers to common law in edict.

sailingaway
05-31-2011, 05:39 PM
Just a last note to the OP. If you start a thread about abortion or immigration, you aren't going to get RON'S views, necessarily, you are going to get the varied views of the people here. But it will likely be an active thread.

Live_Free_Or_Die
05-31-2011, 06:41 PM
Just a last note to the OP. If you start a thread about abortion or immigration, you aren't going to get RON'S views, necessarily, you are going to get the varied views of the people here. But it will likely be an active thread.

I suppose your right... Ron Paul supporters have no clue what Ron Paul advocates. Tell you what, how about I just let Ron Paul's own words carry the day and if the so called Champion of the Constitution deviates from the Constitution I will just call out any hypocrisy....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_2uqYxcOJc&feature=related

"One of the things you have to realize, as soon as you make something illegal you raise the cost and increase the value of it" -Ron Paul
"In a free market economy we have a shortage of labor" -Ron Paul


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db_jAr0n7xQ

"The problem of emigration comes from the welfare state" -Ron Paul
"If you subsidize something you get more of it" -Ron Paul


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38

"I think you can't solve it unless you get rid of the welfare state" -Ron Paul
"I don't think people would resent immigrants under a free market" -Ron Paul


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnu22jUiYtY&feature=related

"I don't like the idea of militarizing the border" -Ron Paul


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG-08ycEup8&feature=related

"I am convinced if we didn't have the welfare state this would be a non issue" -Ron Paul
"Because we are having economic problems the illegal alien becomes and easy scape goat" -Ron Paul


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53ZcNe5WVSU&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL36RDsArzc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew&feature=related

sailingaway
05-31-2011, 06:46 PM
He had different views in the '80s than he has had recently. Be real. The situation was very different then.

However, someone could cherry pick on the other side as well. I'm not going to bother since debate here isn't going to determine anything. He wrote a book, it has a 9 page answer on this, and he has a voting record. You seem interested in getting support for your own position whereas I am interested in letting him frame his own words for future voters. When it comes to divisive topics, I like for him to be the one to set his own tone.

Live_Free_Or_Die
05-31-2011, 07:08 PM
He had different views in the '80s than he has had recently. Be real. The situation was very different then.

However, someone could cherry pick on the other side as well. I'm not going to bother since debate here isn't going to determine anything. He wrote a book, it has a 9 page answer on this, and he has a voting record. You seem interested in getting support for your own position whereas I am interested in letting him frame his own words for future voters. When it comes to divisive topics, I like for him to be the one to set his own tone.

Don't blame the messenger for delivering the correct economic, constitutional, and moral position.

Travlyr
06-02-2011, 05:56 AM
I have never used the phrase "land ownership" or "dirt ownership" and I consider it a separate concept from "property ownership." Property is the result of mixing labor with land. Ownership of property is derived from action. On undeveloped land is there any labor expended to survey borders or other resources of the border contract (ie. deed)?

I think if you look into American common law roots it will become self evident that dirt is not what is owned. The principle that no one created land, therefore dirt is not owned is further evidenced by easements and a duty of care under common law.

You just can't go shooting people who trespass that pose no threat to your well being under common law. A non-violent, non-threatening, non-injuring, non-damaging trespass is not criminal in nature, it is civil (ie. the remedy is equitable, not penal).

You make some excellent points here.

Rather than land ownership, land stewardship is a more accurate description. Land ownership implies using violent aggression to protect property while land stewardship promotes responsible uses of our natural resources.

Bruno
06-02-2011, 06:33 AM
http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm

sailingaway
06-02-2011, 06:50 AM
Don't blame the messenger for delivering the correct economic, constitutional, and moral position.


The question is RON's position, not yours nor mine, and actually, I'm not too far off Ron's and see how he got to where he did, having wrestled the arguments through to their logical conclusion, myself.

Travlyr
06-02-2011, 07:05 AM
The question is RON's position, not yours nor mine, and actually, I'm not too far off Ron's and see how he got to where he did, having wrestled the arguments through to their logical conclusion, myself.

+1

I have even more respect for Ron after watching him progress over the years. It is enlightening to understand how Ron Paul has tweaked his positions as new and better information came to light.

Anyone who really wants to know Ron Paul's position on the 50 most important issues of the day should read Liberty Defined. He tells it straight-up where he stands. There is NO excuse for voting for the wrong guy in 2012.