[Tunnel]

Ron Paul is the most logical choice for president.
___

Obama and McCain are HIGHLY undesirable.

I believe a large part of the populace hates the lack of choice and vague topics these candidates talk about so they then decide not to vote.

Also, many people, even intelligent ones will stupidly vote for the lesser of two evils.

My conclusion is that the US should of stayed within the boundaries our forefathers set up (e.g. the constitution). It would have stopped this (*)symptom focused snowball effect.

-- sorry for the lack of analytical content but I don't believe that it would serve a well enough purpose until later in the thread when/if people speak their thoughts --


* symptom focused rather than focusing on the causes of problems (financial especially).

[Delarge]

Ron Paul offers some interesting ideas, however his emphasis on libertarian capitalism as a near-perfect system is misguided.

[Tunnel]

I like it because it allows the natural flow of things to correct itself.

I personally trust society's ability to find new ways of advancing itself without government stimulus.

Large governments and controlled economies cannot solve problems as efficiently as what Dr. Paul's ideas could do.

What do you suggest with regards to the economy?

[Alexander]

Our understanding of people, the world and all forces in it are severely limited. I don't think we can make evaluations on how a political system will fit within a culture and how it will ultimately end up. Economics is a field that requires only a fraction of the thought needed to evaluate political systems and still a lot of the important incites it's offered have been retrospective. We simply can't evaluate predict how libertarian capitalism would work or any other political system for that matter.

That being said I think it could be a step in the right direction, or wrong direction. Depending on how it plays out it could go either way. Hell, democracy is supposed to be a rule by the people but it's not hard to name popular ideas that the government doesn't even consider.

But Ron Paul would never get elected.

[Delarge]

Unless Dr. Paul is interested in reforming the legal structure of corporations and establishing harsh penalties for executive misconduct, the totalitarian institutions which already dominate society to a large extent would gain even more power.

I object to the current system of land ownership (which would be perpetuated), alienating citizens from such a fundamental resource is absurd and unethical. Most individuals are forced to subordinate themselves simply to secure shelter, through rent or mortgage. Certain sections of land ought to be deemed communal for the sake of those who wish to establish private residences and lead an independent life.

I don't reject the idea of renting one's labour to a capitalist in exchange for a portion of wealth, however under the current (and proposed) system the option of securing land for independent living is far too difficult.

It should be noted that I do fully support preserving the ability of individuals and parties to freely exchange goods and services, and produce goods and services. It could be said that land is my primary concern.

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by Tunnel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I like it because it allows the natural flow of things to correct itself.

Sure, in the long run, it does. Fifty years from now, things will have evened out. In the mean time, you might have starved to death, though.

[Agile]

	Originally Posted by Delarge To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Unless Dr. Paul is interested in reforming the legal structure of corporations and establishing harsh penalties for executive misconduct, the totalitarian institutions which already dominate society to a large extent would gain even more power.

Right on, completely agree. I believe this is one of the main reasons many people are not Libertarians. They know deep down we have not seen an explicit plan as to how to reverse the trend of mammoth corporatism. But that's an administrative step and I do not believe this is grounds to throw the entire system out. After all, [corruption of] the current system created that influence.

Originally Posted by Delarge To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I object to the current system of land ownership (which would be perpetuated), alienating citizens from such a fundamental resource is absurd and unethical. Most individuals are forced to subordinate themselves simply to secure shelter, through rent or mortgage. Certain sections of land ought to be deemed communal for the sake of those who wish to establish private residences and lead an independent life.

With respect, if you believe land should be a communal resource, you and those interested in communal ownership should buy land and make it communal property to those who are part of your 'communal corporation.' This is legal, I'm sure (after all, it's nothing more than a 'Library' with land, rather than books), and once others see your philosophy in action, it will doubtlessly turn others to come and support it.

Again, with all respect, those that want for communal land, government control, etc, are those who fear other human beings either because they are morally depraved and wish to control/exploit others, or because they are hopeless, lazy, and actually support the forced deprival of others' resources so they benefit.

Marxism was dreamed up by an elitist. It is just as explotative as Fascism.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Tunnel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ron Paul is the most logical choice for president.

Just as a PR-tip, you libertarians could do with leaving stuff like that out.

	Originally Posted by Agile To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again, with all respect, those that want for communal land, government control, etc, are those who fear other human beings either because they are morally depraved and wish to control/exploit others, or because they are hopeless, lazy, and actually support the forced deprival of others' resources so they benefit.

With all respect, I am either immoral or weak? You are going to have to elaborate on a claim like that.

[Stargazer]

I agree with the comments of the initial post. While there are many destructive forces we must contend with, few things are more-so immediately threatening to our liberty than party politics. I beleive George Washington had it right when he said:

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

[Ool]

	Originally Posted by Delarge To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ron Paul offers some interesting ideas, however his emphasis on libertarian capitalism as a near-perfect system is misguided.

Yeah, he’s a bit like what Karl Marx used to be in the 19th century, in that some of his analyses of what’s wrong with society and politics are worth listening to, but his suggested solutions would be an unmitigated disaster.

Right-wing libertarianism—the “survival of the most ruggedly responsible individual” type social Darwinism—is kind of a gateway drug to a superman philosophy first and fascism next. The whole idea that the government should be nothing but the watchman with the nightstick, i.e. the police(/courts/military), doesn't exactly require much of a leap to the next stage of a police state, in which everything looks like a nail to the government because all that they're left with if things go wrong is a hammer…

[Doppelbock]

	Originally Posted by Delarge To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ron Paul offers some interesting ideas, however his emphasis on libertarian capitalism as a near-perfect system is misguided.

Would you care to substantiate that claim?

DB

[Henry]

	Originally Posted by Tunnel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I like it because it allows the natural flow of things to correct itself. I personally trust society's ability to find new ways of advancing itself without government stimulus. Large governments and controlled economies cannot solve problems as efficiently as what Dr. Paul's ideas could do. What do you suggest with regards to the economy?

Not a single economist I'm aware of advocates the return of the gold standard. You have to expand the money supply as the economy grows or else you get deflation, which is nasty and causes mass unemployment.

That said, Ron Paul is really the only "conservative" left, as Bush, McCain and company are really big-spenders, just on prisons and wars instead of health care and education.

[dragonsscout]

	Originally Posted by Tunnel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ron Paul is the most logical choice for president.

Your logic fails to persuade me. It's probably a lack of any reasoning or examples that I can see. I recommend you demonstrating this logic to us.

	Obama and McCain are HIGHLY undesirable.

As above, you are stating your opinion. I see no logic.

	I believe a large part of the populace hates the lack of choice and vague topics these candidates talk about so they then decide not to vote.

No, the majority of the population qualifies as moderate, the politicians try to gain support from these people, leading to this "lack of choice." The candidates are very specific in their topics, just more vague in their stances. If they stated their stances, their opponent would pigeonhole them and they would lose votes. I suppose your statement depends on how 'large' is defined.

	Also, many people, even intelligent ones will stupidly vote for the lesser of two evils.

Evils in your view. I don't think that people who want to be president would be the best picks. Generally people who want to be president want power, not to serve the country. As far as I can tell you're either telling me to vote for someone nobody else would or to not vote. Compromising is integral to politics.

My conclusion is that the US should of stayed within the boundaries our forefathers set up (e.g. the constitution). It would have stopped this (*)symptom focused snowball effect. -- sorry for the lack of analytical content but I don't believe that it would serve a well enough purpose until later in the thread when/if people speak their thoughts -- * symptom focused rather than focusing on the causes of problems (financial especially).

This is quite vague, could you elaborate and post some analytical content, as you promised? I won't be offended if you don't, in which case, have fun lurking.

[jesse]

Ron Paul does not stand a chance because he is not offering anything for free. Working is an unpopular idea these days and everyone wants everything handed to them on a silver plate. Why? Because they're worth it.

Secondly, Ron Paul is dead in the water because his ideas are simply too radical for these times, despite those ideas seem to reflect some of the principles used by the founding fathers.
Spoil your children for decades and them suddenly cut them off: not a pretty sight. This is what, in my opinion, has happened in the US. We've simply been lulled into a sleep where everything was great and let others take care of business. Now we're starting to wake up and notice those who were running everything have severely made a much of everything. "Hey! I am not responsible, someone else HAS to fix it all! and I refuse to lift a finger"

[Doppelbock]

	Originally Posted by Henry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not a single economist I'm aware of advocates the return of the gold standard.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. Larry H. White, professor of economics at U. of Missouri-St. Louis. There are many, many others, too. Maybe you don't get out enough. ;-)

[Henry]

	Originally Posted by Doppelbock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	U. of Missouri-St. Louis.

Enough said.

[DrEast]

Originally Posted by Delarge To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Unless Dr. Paul is interested in reforming the legal structure of corporations and establishing harsh penalties for executive misconduct, the totalitarian institutions which already dominate society to a large extent would gain even more power. I object to the current system of land ownership (which would be perpetuated), alienating citizens from such a fundamental resource is absurd and unethical. Most individuals are forced to subordinate themselves simply to secure shelter, through rent or mortgage. Certain sections of land ought to be deemed communal for the sake of those who wish to establish private residences and lead an independent life. I don't reject the idea of renting one's labour to a capitalist in exchange for a portion of wealth, however under the current (and proposed) system the option of securing land for independent living is far too difficult. It should be noted that I do fully support preserving the ability of individuals and parties to freely exchange goods and services, and produce goods and services. It could be said that land is my primary concern.

Have you read Helmut Schoeck's "Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior"? I highly recommend it. What, may I ask, is objectively wrong with subordinating yourself to secure shelter? The only standard you could judge that wrong by would be an egalitarian one, maintaining that even mutually beneficial contracts (mortgage relationships, arguably, which you cite here) are "wrong" so long as they perpetuate a wealth disparity.

To put it another way, people take out mortgages or enter into leases for their own benefit. Homelessness is always a valid option, after all. And, indeed, while we may call them insane, some homeless people are in fact only the purest libertarians in our society. Only the egalitarian impulse would be offended by the comparison of the stations of the lender and the borrower.

But egalitarianism is just socially approved envy, and envy is purely a destructive force, seeking not a gain of one's own position but a destruction of those who are comparatively "better" or "better off" (either will do; it doesn't need to be founded in wealth per se). Egalitarianism will ultimately only harm the society that accedes to it.

The irony is that envy is strongest between near-equals. People don't often compare their lifestyles to kings or oil barons, unless they are themselves kings or oil barons. People compare themselves to their neighbors to stoke that envy. Envy is the driving force behind the ridiculous excesses undertaken by the CEO's that are so often dragged before congress to explain their actions. The thought that "someone out there is almost in the same station as I am, but still better off than me, because I'm somehow inferior to them," drives the envious man to the most ridiculous extremes.

Now, I'll grant that mortgage relationships that are founded on the bank's ability to create the money through the act of loaning are socially destructive, but the argument behind that is less egalitarian and more based in the destructive effects of loose monetary policy on total societal welfare.

[kmweber]

	Originally Posted by Ool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The whole idea that the government should be nothing but the watchman with the nightstick, i.e. the police(/courts/military), doesn't exactly require much of a leap to the next stage of a police state, in which everything looks like a nail to the government because all that they're left with if things go wrong is a hammer…

That's why there should also be no restrictions on civilian ownership of weapons.

That way, we can remind the state of its place when it starts to get uppity.

[hullolife]

Ron Paul would appeal to people with an NT personality. How small is that percentage again?

[dragonsscout]

	Originally Posted by kmweber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's why there should also be no restrictions on civilian ownership of weapons. That way, we can remind the state of its place when it starts to get uppity.

Yup, now if I can just get some plutonium and a couple tons of C4. It's pretty easy to build an atomic bomb once you have the materials, dirty bombs are even easier. Seriously, NO restrictions?

[Marcus Brutus]

Its been a long time between drinks for me but this topic stroked my fancies...

The problem with a lot of libertarian thought is that it does not go far enough. As long as you have a government of any sort, it is going to be distorting the "natural" market environment in some way or another, even if it is just limited to the courts, police and basic infrastructure. And when these distortions happen you have, as Hayek recognised, unintended consequences. So, at the risk of taking this thread slightly off track, how about capitalism in its purest form: anarcho-capitalism. Im sure many people will raise the inevitable complaints such as how do we get a fair justice mechanisms and what not out of such a system, but I think these arguments are a little unwarrented. If people demand security, others will provide; indeed, they will provide it in such a way as the market demands it which is really little different to the way laws and such are inacted in a democratic government with coercive authority: popular laws get enacted and inforced.

I suppose my point is that if a government is to have coercive authority, it should be because government provides more utility in society than a "state of nature". But why should we presume, with the knowledge of 19th and 20th century economic thought under our belt that the state of nature will be as bleak as someone like Thomas Hobbes paints?


Oh and on a side note...

	Originally Posted by Henry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not a single economist I'm aware of advocates the return of the gold standard. You have to expand the money supply as the economy grows or else you get deflation, which is nasty and causes mass unemployment.

Have you never heard of Austrian economics?? Even more mainstream monetary economists like Allan Meltzer do not dismiss the gold standard out of hand: it has an advantage in long term price stability but at the price of short term control. An anracho-capitalist state though should be inclined to adopt whatever monetary system is the most efficient - actually, it very well may be the case that you would have competing monetary systems, a market for money. Anyway, that's enough for now, but I think the question of why any level of government is better than none at all is one that needs to be seriously addressed before an insightful discussion of libertarianism can occur.

[dragonsscout]

Originally Posted by Marcus Brutus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The problem with a lot of libertarian thought is that it does not go far enough. As long as you have a government of any sort, it is going to be distorting the "natural" market environment in some way or another, even if it is just limited to the courts, police and basic infrastructure. And when these distortions happen you have, as Hayek recognised, unintended consequences. So, at the risk of taking this thread slightly off track, how about capitalism in its purest form: anarcho-capitalism. Im sure many people will raise the inevitable complaints such as how do we get a fair justice mechanisms and what not out of such a system, but I think these arguments are a little unwarrented. If people demand security, others will provide; indeed, they will provide it in such a way as the market demands it which is really little different to the way laws and such are inacted in a democratic government with coercive authority: popular laws get enacted and inforced.

No they won't; laws that are good for those with the most money and power will get enforced, unless everyone lives in relatively isolated, small groups with nonexistent power structures in which everyone doesn't care what anyone else does. If they do, and try to influence it somehow, then it's no longer anarchy because a mini-government of a few people just formed.

Oh and on a side note... Have you never heard of Austrian economics?? Even more mainstream monetary economists like Allan Meltzer do not dismiss the gold standard out of hand: it has an advantage in long term price stability but at the price of short term control. An anracho-capitalist state though should be inclined to adopt whatever monetary system is the most efficient - actually, it very well may be the case that you would have competing monetary systems, a market for money. Anyway, that's enough for now, but I think the question of why any level of government is better than none at all is one that needs to be seriously addressed before an insightful discussion of libertarianism can occur.

Gold doesn't provide long-term price stability though, especially at the exponential rate that the population is growing. Each new person lowers the amount of gold per capita, causing deflation. Not only that, but gold supply is actually not as stable as it might seem. People find gold rarely, but gold gets lost when it's used in computers and whenever its handled because of entropy.

The problem with addressing the need for government really isn't necessary though. Government will always form because at it's base level, government is about people structuring themselves in some way and distributing power and responsibility more to some people than to others. Even if most people are indifferent or benign, there will always be those who wish to gain power through any means, including violence and coercion.

[Marcus Brutus]

	Originally Posted by dragonsscout To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No they won't; laws that are good for those with the most money and power will get enforced, unless everyone lives in relatively isolated, small groups with nonexistent power structures in which everyone doesn't care what anyone else does. If they do, and try to influence it somehow, then it's no longer anarchy because a mini-government of a few people just formed.

What you say is somewhat true, however let's try and think about it objectively. In a society ruled by a coercive democracy there is a bias towards laws reflecting people with the money to lobby for those laws (hence the whole problem of lobby groups). If a politician is to win an election he needs a mix of "good" policy, which will appeal to the broader electorate and money to advertise and campaign with. Money is mainly provided by lobbiests who want "bad" or unpopular policy provided. Indeed, it makes sense that the lobbiests will lobby for a law until the benefit (which is admittedly difficult to quantify) of the law is equal to the cost they are paying for it. Now lets combine this with the problem of "irrational rationality"; given that the marginal effectiveness of any voter in an election is in nearly every case zero, the costs of being informed as to what is "good" (benefical to them) policy as opposed to bad (harmful to them) policy is much greater than the benefit that can arise from holding such information. So many voters will vote because of the ads they see on tv or whatnot - the information that is easily acquired. So a successful candidate in an election is going to need a substantial amount of money and thus bad policy to win office.

In an anarchic society without the institutions of democracy and government there will also be a bias towards security firms carrying out the will of people who have a better capacity to pay for their "values" to be upheld. But if the cost of any value is put purely on the person (or peoples) who wants that value imposed instead of on the taxpayer, they will be less willing to impose one of their subjective values as the marginal cost of the value will be much higher. So while there certainly will be a bias towards enforcement favouring those who can better afford it, it is not necessarily clear whether this bias is greater under anarchy or in a political economy.

	Originally Posted by dragonsscout To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Gold doesn't provide long-term price stability though, especially at the exponential rate that the population is growing. Each new person lowers the amount of gold per capita, causing deflation. Not only that, but gold supply is actually not as stable as it might seem. People find gold rarely, but gold gets lost when it's used in computers and whenever its handled because of entropy.

There are certainly problems with a gold standard, it is argued though that price stability is more likely because the inflationary effects of popular monetary policy can be avoided. But the problem the libertarian has with fiat money is that it is ultimately a distortion of the real economy. Perhaps a more sensible approach to currency would be something like an energy backed currency with each dollar being linked to something like a kilowatt hour. That way the currency is directly linked to increases in productivity (as energy production expands so would the money supply).

Originally Posted by dragonsscout To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The problem with addressing the need for government really isn't necessary though. Government will always form because at it's base level, government is about people structuring themselves in some way and distributing power and responsibility more to some people than to others. Even if most people are indifferent or benign, there will always be those who wish to gain power through any means, including violence and coercion.

This is true to some degree, but the ideal libertarian position would I suppose only support coercive government in areas where it creates a more efficent outcome than a free market would. And this is an ideology that can be pursued through the existing political apparatus - deregulating where regulation is inefficient. Potentially (and admittedly this is starting to sound a bit looney) this deregulation could continue until there is nothing left to deregulate. The problem here is that politics and collective action is inherently a sphere most libertarian slanting people would rather avoid and so there is probably going to be a bias against libertarianism within a political system. But my point remains; for government to be justified on a right/wrong criteria it should be because it is more effective than its non-existence. In my experiences it has been difficult to see where it actually meets this criteria.

[dragonsscout]

Originally Posted by Marcus Brutus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

...In a society ruled by a coercive democracy there is a bias towards laws reflecting people with the money to lobby for those laws (hence the whole problem of lobby groups). If a politician is to win an election he needs a mix of "good" policy, which will appeal to the broader electorate and money to advertise and campaign with... Now lets combine this with the problem of "irrational rationality"; given that the marginal effectiveness of any voter in an election is in nearly every case zero, the costs of being informed as to what is "good" (benefical to them) policy as opposed to bad (harmful to them) policy is much greater than the benefit that can arise from holding such information. So many voters will vote because of the ads they see on tv or whatnot - the information that is easily acquired. So a successful candidate in an election is going to need a substantial amount of money and thus bad policy to win office. In an anarchic society without the institutions of democracy and government there will also be a bias towards security firms carrying out the will of people who have a better capacity to pay for their "values" to be upheld. But if the cost of any value is put purely on the person (or peoples) who wants that value imposed instead of on the taxpayer, they will be less willing to impose one of their subjective values as the marginal cost of the value will be much higher. So while there certainly will be a bias towards enforcement favouring those who can better afford it, it is not necessarily clear whether this bias is greater under anarchy or in a political economy.

I partially agree, but I think that you're underestimating how many voters are at least somewhat informed, how valuable the information is, and how much people actually care about policies that hurt them (or at least that they perceive to be hurting them). This is more true the more educated a population is, though, as populations in more developed countries are more politically aware and less likely to be fooled than populations in less developed countries. I would like to note here that I am not saying it's not easy to pull the wool over people's eyes in developed countries, just more difficult than in less developed countries.

In a super-libertarian society it would be much easier to commit assassinations, intimidation, etc. This would lead to a rise in organized crime and mini-governments that have protection rackets and the like. Here I would say that the security firms would be these crime syndicates and mini-governments, as they would hold the real power in society.

There are certainly problems with a gold standard, it is argued though that price stability is more likely because the inflationary effects of popular monetary policy can be avoided. But the problem the libertarian has with fiat money is that it is ultimately a distortion of the real economy. Perhaps a more sensible approach to currency would be something like an energy backed currency with each dollar being linked to something like a kilowatt hour. That way the currency is directly linked to increases in productivity (as energy production expands so would the money supply).

All money is fiat money though. Gold has little actual value, people don't need it, and it's not too useful. Your energy idea is a good idea for a commodity money. The only problem would be a choice between uncontrollable inflation/deflation, or the total disruption it would create in the market for electricity. There probably isn't an ideal choice for a monetary system, just a whole bunch of bad ones that vary in their problems.

This is true to some degree, but the ideal libertarian position would I suppose only support coercive government in areas where it creates a more efficent outcome than a free market would. And this is an ideology that can be pursued through the existing political apparatus - deregulating where regulation is inefficient. Potentially (and admittedly this is starting to sound a bit looney) this deregulation could continue until there is nothing left to deregulate. The problem here is that politics and collective action is inherently a sphere most libertarian slanting people would rather avoid and so there is probably going to be a bias against libertarianism within a political system. But my point remains; for government to be justified on a right/wrong criteria it should be because it is more effective than its non-existence. In my experiences it has been difficult to see where it actually meets this criteria.

Very true. Your two points (which I interpret to be that money can be anything, as it is simply a medium of exchange, and your point about the value of government), which were good ones, still stand. However, I was pointing out the pointlessness of debating the need for any government (as opposed to the power of government), as a debate between anarchists and anything else. Because there will always be government in human society, it's largely pointless debating it's need. Of course, I am talking about informal government as well as formal government here.

[OrrDavey]

Ron Paul is the man.

In a good way.