Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
So you guys are anarchists? I am not saying I disagree with you and in a perfect world I wouldn't think twice about agreeing with an anarchist, but I have some questions. How do you respond to arguments such as nothing would prevent you from breaking a contract with another person or business(maybe it is someone with no need of a "credit" score), or starting your own slavery organisation with thousands of members. Would mob violence for bad be met with mod violence for good? Or what if a foreign country attacks ours? With no "public" backing of force for what is agreed on as right(which includes a public defense) it seems we leave ourselves vulnerable, individually and as a society. I have always been on the government is a necessary evil side, but it isn't an open and shut case in my mind like it used to be.
What I say is for entertainment purposes only!
Mark 10:45 The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.
"If you want to make a lot of money, resist diversification." - Jim Rogers
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north952.htmlOriginally Posted by Gary North
"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
Ronald Reagan, 1981
Yep because the owner place his value on the apples
But without the owner, or anyone else placing a value on apples - it has no value
Not true.That price will be its market value
It will be some PRICE a whole lot higher than HIS value.
No such thing as an intrinsic value.(in that particular market, should you pay that price) times its intrinsic value
That apple is priced to whatever the owner wishes it to be and he needs no calculator to figure it out (though he may use a calculator)
Ron Paul actually didn't vote against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. But he didn't vote for it, either. He was one of 15 who didn't vote.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll570.xml
Otherwise, good post.
"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
Ronald Reagan, 1981
Okay, Black Flag. You don't like fish and you don't like apples. Some of us do. Apples have value to me. They are great with peanut butter. Those of us who like them will bid on them in the free-market and find the price in ounces of silver, gold, or whatever the apple grower and fisherman are willing to let them trade hands. You are not required to participate. After all it is a free market.
"Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul
Brother Jonathan
I am wary of labels -especially this one- as most people have no clue what it means other then mind-mush they have heard or read about it from the Main Stream Media.
But anti-Statists, sure.
Perfect worlds don't exist and are unnecessary for anarchists.I am not saying I disagree with you and in a perfect world I wouldn't think twice about agreeing with an anarchist, but I have some questions.
Your word is your bond, and becomes your life.How do you respond to arguments such as nothing would prevent you from breaking a contract with another person or business(maybe it is someone with no need of a "credit" score),
You cheat me, you'll never trade with me or anyone else - and you need to trade to live. That is why ostracizing was such a serious punishment - no one dealt with you any more, and that was a slow death sentence.
Like the government does?or starting your own slavery organisation with thousands of members.
You, right now, live under a series of tradeoffs - some you probably didn't know you've made.Would mob violence for bad be met with mod violence for good?
You have decided to accept:
- a pervasive, overwhelming, national, constant theft and violence on you by government - but it is more or less spread over everyone and is predictable.
instead of:
- a very rare, local, random, personal violence by a thug - which is directed at you personally and is unpredictable.
You'd rather have a constant, shared by everyone, predictable knife to your throat then the random, very rare, shared by no one, unpredictable knife to your throat.
And that's the trade off you've made.
I'd rather deal with the other one.
But you have to deal with one or the other.
ahhahahahh who?Or what if a foreign country attacks ours?
How are they getting here?
And why would they attack when it is cheaper to trade?
Why do you assume only criminals are capable of organizing themselves, but free men are unable to organize themselves.With no "public" backing of force for what is agreed on as right(which includes a public defense)
And as such, you place a value on them that comes from you - the individual.
Did you read Menger? He figured that out 150 years ago.
You got it! (thumbs up)Apples have value to me. They are great with peanut butter. Those of us who like them will bid on them in the free-market and find the price in ounces of silver, gold, or whatever the apple grower and fisherman are willing to let them trade hands. You are not required to participate. After all it is a free market.
I say deregulate the banks as much as possible. Create a few simple rules that are easy to understand and have strict enforcement of those rules. Less regulations enables smaller companies to compete, which increases competition, increased competition prevents companies from adopting shady practices. Additionally, increased competition will prevent a domino effect if one bank went under... since there would be many smaller banks instead of just a few large banks.
Things are ass backwards today. Today they have millions of bs regulations and very minimal enforcement. They should do the exact opposite of what they are doing now.
I disagree. We need to regulate the banks.
"I am, therefore I'll think" - Ayn Rand
I disagree.
It is funny - people will rant against monopolies being "bad" for the People, create over-priced goods of ever more poorer quality, etc. in any other industry ..except banking...where they will rally against the elimination of the bank monopoly in fear it will be "bad" for the people, create over-priced goods of ever more poorer quality, etc.
Travlyr, that is an example of a crackpot economic theory.
It is a theory, like all theories, that begin with an hypothesis - but when tested, does not explain reality very well or at all - but remains steadfast in the mind of the theorist as if it was not refuted - but confirmed!
You disagree. You want to regulate banks.
That is what you said.
I did address it - you want to maintain the monopoly on the banking industry - that is what "regulations" does; by administrative processes, it prevents the entry of competition.
Now, I assume -like most people- you disagree with economic monopolies if they occur in other segments ... yet, here, you support processes that ensure and expand a monopoly.
This is called a contradiction - and, as this is commonly an artifact of crackpot theories, I used this as a segue into explaining to Travlyr what such a theory is - which was beyond his limited comprehension.
First theories do NOT determine facts at all. Facts do not need a theory to exist. And if you didn't know that, perhaps you need to go to school.
Theories attempt to explain an effect we witness in reality. We are trying to discover the "cause" that made "that effect", so that we can then make it a tool for us to use.
If we can learn that X causes Y, and one day we want a Y, we know that all we have to do is do an X... that is what we are trying to do with theories.
Theories start with an hypothesis ... an educated guess at a causation... that attempts to explain a consequence.
We then test this -usually by doing that thing- to see if we get the consequence.
If we do, we have a theory.
If we do not, we start again, making a better guess at the causation.
A CRACKPOT theory comes in many forms.
One is called "Confirming the conclusion" - that is, you already know what you want to be the answer, regardless of its reality, and you fabricate causes ad hoc that you claim will cause such a conclusion - such as "Anthropogenic Global Warming" where the conclusion - humans caused the warming - is confirmed no matter the reality; it snows - its caused by humans; it warms - it is caused by humans; it doesn't do either - it is caused by humans.
Another example is when a theorist goes down the hypothesis, test, conclusion path - and finds his hypothesis does not explain the consequence. Instead of starting over, and making a better guess, he holds on to this hypothesis and begins to add externalities to explain why the consequence didn't happen the way he said it would.
This is typical in economics - such as understanding the Theory of Money. You can get a sense of the crackpottery by merely following along.
First, one begins claiming gold is money but paper money is not money.
Yet, when you test this, you see people use paper money to buy things, but do not use gold to buy things.
So, instead of going "hmm, that's true, so maybe my money theory is wrong" - the gold bug makes up ANOTHER crackpot theory to explain that:
-yes, because the paper money is FAKE and all those people are fooled into believing it is money when it is not money and only gold is money but the people are fooled! Yes, that's it!
But then you say, all those people are fools? 300 million people are fooled into using and accepting paper money to buy things, but the money is fake, and they are all being fooled into using this money to buy things... yet, people ARE trading away goods and services and buying things just fine so... why is it fake if it is doing exactly the job "real" money would do...anyway? Doesn't that mean its money?
And, now, really twisted in a knot the theorist having another chance to quit and go back and re-evaluate his monetary theory... but oh no! It must go on by providing another one on top of the last one that was on top of the last one to explain why foolish people are very successful in using fake money as good or better than the real money that no one uses!
...and so on.
Last edited by Black Flag; 03-05-2012 at 12:42 AM.
"Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul
Brother Jonathan
Well then let me just say that people smarter than you know what is going on.
Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money
By HON. HOWARD BUFFETT
U. S. Congressman from Nebraska
"Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul
Brother Jonathan
This and the Rothbard video from earlier in the thread are absolutely essential.
The epitome of libertarian populismOriginally Posted by Ron Paul
Connect With Us