If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Ron Paul narrowly misses his chance to RON PAUL the Republican National Convention (if it wasn't for those meddling Nebraskans...)   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 125
    More: Followup, Ron Paul, Nebraska, Republican Liberty Caucus, Joint Economic Committee, Sunnyvale, California, insurgents, political convention, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

3136 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2012 at 11:49 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



125 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-15 05:22:52 PM

StokeyBob: When I started looking into where the money was coming from to buy off the politicians and subvert the immigration laws of the world, I came across what may be the root of many of our problems. Fiat Money.


Yeah, this is the type of promise we hear from scam artists and quacks all the damn time. "Oh, I have this bottle of snake oil. It will singlehandedly treat all the major health problems that Americans are experiencing, from diabetes to AIDS!"

They're convinced that they and they alone see the answers to the problems, and if anyone says otherwise, then it's because they're in on the conspiracy.

Also, they never go into any real detail on how the answers actually work. They create an incredibly simplified model that picks one or two scenarios completely out of context, but then when you ask them to address more complex issues, or even elaborate on the scenarios they already presented, they attempt to handwave it away.
 
2012-07-15 05:37:03 PM

So can Gary Johnson have the Ron Paul supporters now?

Gary Johnson
 
2012-07-15 05:40:04 PM

ZombieApocalypseKitten: So can Gary Johnson have the Ron Paul supporters now?

Gary Johnson


This Ron Paul supporter will be voting for Gary Johnson in November. You can count on that.
 
2012-07-15 05:40:38 PM

iawai: Flappyhead: Had a conversation with a Rontard a few months back who proposed, straight faced, competing currencies. They would each be independent and their value would be based on whatever the people behind it could come up with. Better still, the population would invest in those currencies, inflating the ones they felt were better. That's right, he was proposing a stock market monetary system.

And?

Out of all the Paul-tardiness in this thread, that's actually a reasonable idea.


Yeah, because the stock market is completely stable and not open to manipulation at all. Wall Street can always be trusted to maintain our money openly, honestly, and fairly. Also, the market place is always 100% rational in determining winners and losers, and artificial bubbles that cause specific currencies to overvalue due to hype and marketing will never happen.

Money is supposed to be a medium of exchange. It is not supposed to be treated as an investment in itself. Yes, there are many people who make money off the currency exchange, but that does not mean that a currency exchange is the purpose of having money.

The problem with Ron Paul's competing currency proposal is that it doesn't actually mean anything, because it's never explained in detail. Ron Paul is simply taking an open ended phrase, so that people are free to describe it however they imagine it to be. The fact is, you are already free to create your own local currency, so long as 1) you peg it to the dollar for the sake of paying your taxes, and 2) you do not confuse people into thinking that it's US currency. Which means that most of the people calling for competing currency are looking to avoid paying taxes.

The idea of competing currency is, "Both parties are free to use an alternative currencies, as long as both parties agree." The thing is, they can do that right now. So why do we need competing currencies at all, to achieve this thing that can already be achieved?

The reason we need money isn't for situations where both parties agree. It's for situations where both parties don't. i.e., let's say that the grocery store demands you pay your bill in gold eagles. You are free to refuse that transaction, so there's no harm. And the thing is, a lot of businesses can do that right now. For instance, a stamp collector can refuse to sell you a rare stamp unless you give him something rare in return. Perfectly legitimate.

But what if it's a cop writing out a parking ticket? Obviously, you don't get to refuse that transaction. So if the cop demands you pay in gold eagles, then you're screwed. The purpose of legal tender laws is to make sure this doesn't happen. Ron Paul wants to repeal legal tender laws. How do you determine parking tickets in the absence of legal tender? How do you determine taxes?
 
2012-07-15 05:47:26 PM

schrodinger: The problem with Ron Paul's competing currency proposal is that it doesn't actually mean anything, because it's never explained in detail.


Dude, it HAS been explained in detail - to YOU, many times. You just don't agree with it, because in your words, you hate libertarians "with a fiery passion," and you refuse to see their point of view.

After awhile, people get sick and tired of retreading the same points with you because you choose obtuse reasons to be enlightened on the subject (I remember recommending a book about a subject to you, and you refused to read it because it didn't have enough reviews on Amazon to your liking (there were over 40 reviews on Amazon, by the way)).

There is a reason why I call you trolldinger. You have no intention of seeing anyone's point of view but your own, and will make yourself look like a total internet fool doing it.
 
2012-07-15 05:58:43 PM

schrodinger: Which means that Uncle Phil's company stayed flat relative to inflation for 25 years.


If you compare this chart showing the Dow Jones Industrial Average with the devaluation chart I posted earlier you can see that the average of all of the stock prices have remained stable to other commodities for over forty years. The thing that has been changing is the value of the dollar.

Stocks haven't went up the value of the dollar went down. And is going down hard.

photos.imageevent.comClick to embiggen


Here is the other one again. If your still not seeing it think of the DOW as being the average of a hundred stocks and knock off two zero's.


photos.imageevent.comClick to embiggen


See how real money and real commodities have been playing nice and running stable hidden in plain site all of the time we've had run-a-way inflation creating a grand illusion?

photos.imageevent.com
 
2012-07-15 06:06:28 PM
 
2012-07-15 06:12:28 PM

DeltaPunch: Dammit I was so looking forward to seeing this at the GOP convention:

photos.imageevent.com


Nice picture DeltaPunch. Ron Paul really does seem to have the ability to think beyond many peoples idea of reality.
 
2012-07-15 06:14:37 PM

Deftoons: Dude, it HAS been explained in detail - to YOU, many times.


Saying that the free market will magically find a way is not an explanation.

Here, let me ask you three basic questions as a starting place:

1) What currency do people use to pay the government?
2) What currency does the government use to pay their employees?
3) What happens if people refuse to accept the currency of government employees, which they can do when you repeal legal tender?

You need to create a currency that is in high demand, and accepted everywhere. But that same currency also has to be in high supply, so people can pay their taxes with it. Please come up with a currency that is both in "high supply" and "high demand" without using fiat currency or legal tender laws, and without appealing to libertarian market.

After awhile, people get sick and tired of retreading the same points with you because you choose obtuse reasons to be enlightened on the subject (I remember recommending a book about a subject to you, and you refused to read it because it didn't have enough reviews on Amazon to your liking (there were over 40 reviews on Amazon, by the way)).

Wrong. The problem is that just saying "pay your own money to read this 300 page book" is not an answer. No matter what I point to and respond to, you will merely insist that I am focusing on the wrong chapters or on the wrong point. It's a dodge. If I tell you to read Paul Krugman's books and refute them line by line before arguing with you, is that a valid argument? Because if it is, then I dare you to do it.

If you have an argument to make, then make it in the thread. Don't demand that other people jump through hoops because you're too lazy or too stupid to state your own argument in your own words.
 
2012-07-15 06:21:51 PM

schrodinger: Deftoons: Dude, it HAS been explained in detail - to YOU, many times.

Saying that the free market will magically find a way is not an explanation.


That wasn't the explanation that was given to you. This is what your internet pundit filter interpreted and continued to be obtuse to actual answers provided to you.

This includes the rest of your questions in your post. I could cut and paste previous answers if you want, but I know it will go through one eye and out the other.
 
2012-07-15 06:22:02 PM

StokeyBob: The thing that has been changing is the value of the dollar.


Sure, because population growth, increased demand, and peak supply hasn't been occurring anywhere in the world at all. The only reason why Action Comics #1 is worth more today than it was when it was first printed (10 cents) is because of inflation. No other reason.

Stocks haven't went up the value of the dollar went down.

Oh, so you mean that the only reason why Apple and Google have shot up in price over the past decade is due to inflation? No other possible reason you can think of?

See how real money and real commodities have been playing nice and running stable hidden in plain site all of the time we've had run-a-way inflation creating a grand illusion?

Answer me this: What would your current salary be if we never left the gold standard, and if the US economy was 100% backed by gold (meaning that 100% of the population)?

Because if you can't tell me what your salary would be under this sort of economy, then pointing to a photo of the hypothetical price of gas in this imaginary economy is completely worthless.

Under deflation, your salary goes down every year, which means that the average income today would be far less than the average income from 100 years ago. So that means that gas might cost 20 cents a gallon, but it doesn't help you if your daily salary is 5 cents per day. Are you really better off?
 
2012-07-15 06:25:07 PM

schrodinger: Wrong. The problem is that just saying "pay your own money to read this 300 page book" is not an answer. No matter what I point to and respond to, you will merely insist that I am focusing on the wrong chapters or on the wrong point. It's a dodge.


While not only is your answer a massive strawman, I would at least give you credit for actually reading the book.

But seeing you have not even actually contradicted my answer, you just proved what I said to be correct.

You're done here.
 
2012-07-15 06:26:02 PM
Paultards don't like government, so they don't care if taxes are collected or not, or if government employees are paid or not. If government shrinks to the point where they can drown it in the bathtub; so much the better.
 
2012-07-15 06:26:49 PM

Deftoons: That wasn't the explanation that was given to you. This is what your internet pundit filter interpreted and continued to be obtuse to actual answers provided to you.

This includes the rest of your questions in your post. I could cut and paste previous answers if you want, but I know it will go through one eye and out the other.


Oh, you may know that, but everyone else thinks you're full of shiat. So why not just copy and paste anyway, not for my sake, but for the sake of everyone else here?

Unless, of course, you're the one who's full of shiat, and you have absolutely nothing worth pasting. So instead of simply spending 20 seconds on google to find a page where these answers supposedly exist already, or spending 2 minutes typing out a response since you supposedly know the answer in your own head, you're instead going to waste an even greater amount of time throughout the day telling us how posting a simple response is a waste of time.
 
2012-07-15 06:30:35 PM

Deftoons: schrodinger: Wrong. The problem is that just saying "pay your own money to read this 300 page book" is not an answer. No matter what I point to and respond to, you will merely insist that I am focusing on the wrong chapters or on the wrong point. It's a dodge.

While not only is your answer a massive strawman, I would at least give you credit for actually reading the book.

But seeing you have not even actually contradicted my answer, you just proved what I said to be correct.


Me telling you that you're wrong is not the same thing as contradicting you? Wow. You're really stupid.

So let me get this straight. You refuse to spend 20 seconds copying and pasting your previous responses to my questions, or 2 minutes re-typing them.

But you expect me to spend $20 to order a book on Amazon, wait several days for the book to arrive, read through several hundred pages, and write out a line by line response for every page in the hopes that I will address any possible argument that you hope to cite from that book, because you refuse to simply post the argument directly.

Seriously. If you can't even take the time to post the specific argument you want me to address from your book, then why should I bother taking the time and money to order it?
 
2012-07-15 06:44:37 PM

StokeyBob: DeltaPunch: Dammit I was so looking forward to seeing this at the GOP convention:

[photos.imageevent.com image 566x357]

Nice picture DeltaPunch. Ron Paul really does seem to have the ability to think beyond many peoples idea of reality.


Just a screencap from the latest Onion video, which I highly recommend. ;)

img210.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-15 06:45:04 PM
Once again, Deftoons, please answer the following questions, including one new one:

1) What currency do people use to pay the government under competing currencies?
2) What happens if people do not have access to the currency that government requires?
3) What currency does the government use to pay their employees?
4) What happens if people refuse to accept the currency of government employees, which they can do when you repeal legal tender?

If you seriously have any sensible answer to these questions, then it won't take you more than 20 seconds to type. For instance, you could type in "US dollars," or you can type in "gold," or you can type in "whatever you want."

The problem is, you know and I know that you have no answer for these questions. And these questions are really, really basic. If you answer "US dollars," then you have no explanation on what happens on question #4. If you answer "gold," then you have no explanation on what happens in question #2. In other words, you're screwed. You know it, and I know it.

The only way for you to answer this questions is to invent an entirely new form of currency, one that has never existed before on planet Earth (or else you would have simply typed it in), and one which you have no idea how it will work. You want to imagine that the free market will come up with a currency that will magically answer both #2 and #4. But you don't know how that will come to be. Also, the answer apparently doesn't exist anywhere on the internet, or else you could simply copy and paste a link. Which basically means that you have to come up with an answer that no other libertarian on the internet has ever come up with before. And I have to take you on your word that you have this answer, despite your inability to share it with us right now.

In other words, you're full of shiat.
 
2012-07-15 07:14:04 PM

ZombieApocalypseKitten: So can Gary Johnson have the Ron Paul supporters now?

Gary Johnson


Yes. Of course. Uncle Gar will get my vote.

Doesn't make me any happier knowing how the Paulaneers got silenced at caucus and the GOP tried to spin it as a good thing.

I don't reckon Gary has a snowball's chance, but I don't vote because of predicted outcomes. I vote for the most suitable person. He's it.

Sad day here at the phenn household. We carry on.
 
2012-07-15 07:33:13 PM

schrodinger: Once again, Deftoons, please answer the following questions, including one new one:

1) What currency do people use to pay the government under competing currencies?
2) What happens if people do not have access to the currency that government requires?
3) What currency does the government use to pay their employees?
4) What happens if people refuse to accept the currency of government employees, which they can do when you repeal legal tender?

If you seriously have any sensible answer to these questions, then it won't take you more than 20 seconds to type. For instance, you could type in "US dollars," or you can type in "gold," or you can type in "whatever you want."

The problem is, you know and I know that you have no answer for these questions. And these questions are really, really basic. If you answer "US dollars," then you have no explanation on what happens on question #4. If you answer "gold," then you have no explanation on what happens in question #2. In other words, you're screwed. You know it, and I know it.

The only way for you to answer this questions is to invent an entirely new form of currency, one that has never existed before on planet Earth (or else you would have simply typed it in), and one which you have no idea how it will work. You want to imagine that the free market will come up with a currency that will magically answer both #2 and #4. But you don't know how that will come to be. Also, the answer apparently doesn't exist anywhere on the internet, or else you could simply copy and paste a link. Which basically means that you have to come up with an answer that no other libertarian on the internet has ever come up with before. And I have to take you on your word that you have this answer, despite your inability to share it with us right now.

In other words, you're full of shiat.


1) Who gives a shiat. The govt doesn't deserve to be paid. If it was a farking voluntary transaction, the parties could negotiate a mutually agreeable currency. Since it is a coerced relationship, I'd venture to guess that the govt would demand payment in whatever currency worked best for them. Maybe the Yuan.

2) What happens when they don't "have access" to dollars? This is a stupid and meaningless question that only goes to show that you are trying to rely on people to draw their own emotional conclusions about hypothetical situations, instead of analytically reasoning about the actual problem at hand. It also goes to show that you have now idea about the economics of currencies, and that they wouldn't be currencies if people couldn't "access" them.

3) The govt currently pays with what? Would you call it scrip? It's a currency issued by the very agency paying their salary (or, created in tandem by them and an "independent" central bank). What is this question even designed to do? I don't care how the internal machinations of a firm in a free market work, as long as they aren't out there threatening and hurting people. If they wanted to pay their employees in camel hairs, it's not my business. And your free to quit if you don't like what they offer. Oh yeah, the govt employees also have the largest union membership in the nation now, so I bet they could negotiate a pretty damned useful currency for their salaries.

4) SO THE FARK WHAT? Let people turn away customers. You're just imagineering problems. If bob is selling ice cream that he pays .04 silver ounces to produce at the margin, he will charge more than .04 silver ounces for it. He might also accept .00025 gold ounces, US$2, .3 bitcoins, 1.5 british pounds, or 15 million camel hairs. Or he might decide that it's just too much of a burden to accept camel hairs and then trade them for a currency that's more useful to him, so he will refuse to accept them. THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST COMPETING CURRENCIES.

The rest of your post addressed to Deftoons is hogwash and deserves no further comment based on my answers to your childish, strawman, and distracting questions that assume that the govt is the be-all, end-all of a functioning economy instead of its mortal enemy.
 
2012-07-15 07:52:59 PM

StokeyBob: Karac: So to put those numbers into your embiggened analogy we - the citizens, and them - the government both started with 1 super dollar. Then instead of the federal reserve going out and just printing eight more super dollars, the citizenry went out and produced 14.

Also, how is the government just saying "This is how much a dollar is worth" different from it saying "This is how much gold a dollar bill is worth"; or is RON PAULS plan to find enough gold to mint money for every person in the country, and everyone else on the planet that want to use US currency? Because those would be some damn small coins and I'd rather not lose a years pay in the cushions of my couch.


I was just using a hypothetical example. In reality they have given those that probably shouldn't of had any say with a dollar twenty six times the say as the people with the honest dollar.

[photos.imageevent.com image 600x532]


Why couldn't an honest fiat maintain a stable value and expand with the amount of stuff we have? If you double your stuff and double the money supply it should remain stable and something people could once again save and bank on.

Once you grab the concept of the corrupt fiat Super Dollar some other concepts may come into view.

~No matter where you aunt Martha hid the sugar jar with here savings in it others are able to slither in like vampires in the night and suck the strength out of it. (Total understatement. They are also slithering in and sucking the value out of the jar, the shelf it is on, the property it is on, and everything else. Everything!)

~Sure if the double the money supply your Uncle Phil gets twice as much when he sells his stocks but he is getting twice as many of something worth half as much. Plus some of the very people that counterfeited the money supply have now cut themselves in on his stuff with capital gains taxes.

Are these the false profits we were warned about?


Replot that on the logarithmic scale that inflation works in and get back to us.
 
2012-07-15 08:27:12 PM

kevinatilusa: Iowa Caucus: Ron Paul finishes third in votes.
Louisiana Primary: Ron Paul finishes third with less than 17% of the vote to Santorum's 42%.
Maine Caucus: Ron Paul finishes 2nd to Mitt Romney in votes.
Minnesota Caucus: Ron Paul finishes 2nd in votes, 17% behind Mitt Romney.

And yet his supporters hijacked the voters' will at all four of those states' conventions. What a messed up system that let him do even this well.


the republicans have been doing similar things starting at the local level for years now. they did it at the national level in 2010 with the "jobs jobs jobs" oh we meant abortion when they got elected. you think the voters in VA don't feel lied to by governor ultrasound.

personally i would have loved to see Ron Paul get a speaking spot. but i hate the republican party so there's that.
 
2012-07-15 08:32:30 PM

iawai: 1) Who gives a shiat. The govt doesn't deserve to be paid.


Oh, so you're advocating for total anarchy then, where the government is completely unable to pay for basic services like public roads and public police. Great platform, I'm glad we cleared that up.

2) What happens when they don't "have access" to dollars? This is a stupid and meaningless question

People will have access to dollars. Unfortunately, Ron Paul's proposal is to make the US dollar worthless and gold the de-facto currency by repealing legal tender laws.

3) The govt currently pays with what? Would you call it scrip?

The government currently pays for services in legal tender. Which Ron Paul hopes to repeal.

I don't care how the internal machinations of a firm in a free market work, as long as they aren't out there threatening and hurting people. If they wanted to pay their employees in camel hairs, it's not my business.

Well, it is sort of your business, because you're the one relying on government paid services. If government can't find a viable currency to build roads with, then that means no roads for you.

4) SO THE FARK WHAT? Let people turn away customers.

Businesses can't refuse legal tender as payment on debt. It's against the law. If you owe the tow company $500 and attempt to pay them in US dollars, the tow company does not have the legal right to refuse it and keep your car unless you give them a pile of gold. Under the law, once you pay the tow company in legal tender, the debt has been cleared. Ron Paul wants to give businesses the power to refuse legal tender.

Or he might decide that it's just too much of a burden to accept camel hairs and then trade them for a currency that's more useful to him, so he will refuse to accept them. THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST COMPETING CURRENCIES.

So tell us... what is a currency that Bob is universally willing to accept, and that his customers are universally able to pay? It's easy to list a currency that fulfills one burden or the other. It is exceedingly difficult to find a currency that fulfills both. Which is why we invented fiat currency and legal tender laws.

Don't just tell us that the free market will magically come up with a universal currency in the absent of fiat and legal tender laws. Actually tell us what the currency will be.

The rest of your post addressed to Deftoons is hogwash and deserves no further comment based on my answers to your childish, strawman, and distracting questions that assume that the govt is the be-all, end-all of a functioning economy instead of its mortal enemy.

So once again, you're advocating from a position of anarchy. Great. Move to Somalia.
 
2012-07-15 08:33:09 PM

CokeBear: Paultards don't like government, so they don't care if taxes are collected or not, or if government employees are paid or not. If government shrinks to the point where they can drown it in the bathtub; so much the better.


I myself welcome our privatized police force overwarlords.
 
2012-07-15 09:18:36 PM

schrodinger: iawai: 1) Who gives a shiat. The govt doesn't deserve to be paid.

Oh, so you're advocating for total anarchy then, where the government is completely unable to pay for basic services like public roads and public police. Great platform, I'm glad we cleared that up.


I'm glad you prefaced those services as "public." There would be roads and protection, and we'd be MORE able to pay for them without the waste of the monopolistic bureaucracy of govt running these services. And wouldn't you rather be able to switch providers if you didn't like the service that was being forced down your throat?

Great platform, I'm glad we cleared that up.



2) What happens when they don't "have access" to dollars? This is a stupid and meaningless question

People will have access to dollars. Unfortunately, Ron Paul's proposal is to make the US dollar worthless and gold the de-facto currency by repealing legal tender laws.


So what? You're not making any assertions here about how this would be good or bad for the people. You're just pretending that "gold" is some bad word that proves itself as a bad idea. And further, the current dollar policies are going to make the dollar worthless while forcing people to keep using it. Wouldn't you rather be able to jump ship to a "better" currency, whether gold, silver, private bank-notes, or bitcoins while your dollars still had some value?

Again, thanks for making it clear that you want EVERYONE to suffer, under penalty of law, to serve your interest in propping up a tyrannical system.


3) The govt currently pays with what? Would you call it scrip?

The government currently pays for services in legal tender. Which Ron Paul hopes to repeal.

I don't care how the internal machinations of a firm in a free market work, as long as they aren't out there threatening and hurting people. If they wanted to pay their employees in camel hairs, it's not my business.

Well, it is sort of your business, because you're the one relying on government paid services. If government can't find a viable currency to build roads with, then that means no roads for you.


You're no different than a sycophantic Russian saying "If govt doesn't provide food, that means we won't have any food!"

I'm relying on govt services only to the extent that they have driven competitors out of the markets because they can undercut costs and take resources via eminent domain. If the govt were just another actor in a free market without threats and coercion, maybe I'd still use some of their stuff. But until they compete fairly in the provision of "public goods," we don't have any empirical evidence that they are necessary to provide such things. And if we look historically at the provision of roads, etc., we can see that these things worked just fine under private, voluntary provision.

4) SO THE FARK WHAT? Let people turn away customers.

Businesses can't refuse legal tender as payment on debt. It's against the law. If you owe the tow company $500 and attempt to pay them in US dollars, the tow company does not have the legal right to refuse it and keep your car unless you give them a pile of gold. Under the law, once you pay the tow company in legal tender, the debt has been cleared. Ron Paul wants to give businesses the power to refuse legal tender.


Businesses CAN, TODAY, refuse to accept dollars. They can only accept barter currencies or in-kind trades for services. They can accept foreign currencies only. They aren't obligated to take US dollars. You're just wrong here.

So tell us... what is a currency that Bob is universally willing to accept, and that his customers are universally able to pay? It's easy to list a currency that fulfills one burden ...

Universally? Like if he was in "Best Korea"? You are confusing the landmass claimed by the US govt with the universe.

Besides, what is the point of arguing that a currency must be "universal"? Is there some benefit in using the business end of a gun to make everyone transact with some universal medium of exchange that exceeds the cost of those violent means? And what about the ethics of the situation?


You've made yourself blatantly clear, here, schodinger. You don't care about people's wants and needs. You don't care about what is good for people. You just care about having an institution of central control, that you hope will never be ran against your jingoistic interests. You want to be a stormtrooper in good favor to the empire, and you only care about issues to the extent that they can help the empire. People be damned, we have a Deathstar to build.
 
2012-07-15 09:29:00 PM

schrodinger: iawai: Don't just tell us that the free market will magically come up with a universal currency in the absent of fiat and legal tender laws. Actually tell us what the currency will be.


Sorry to break it up, but your long-winded short-sightedness bled past the "quote-limit".

I don't want there to be such a currency. There doesn't HAVE to be such a currency for a well functioning economy. If you're interested you can look at some of the work in experimental economics that shows that one currency will tend to dominate absent central dictate. Where a room of people told to trade their multi-colored beads for different goods eventually settled on using a single color bead for transactions and left the other colors for personal collections without any outside influence.

You don't want to know the answer anyway. You're not asking Socratic questions here to flesh out the idea of competing currencies, you're following the path of the creationist trying to trap the darwinist in some anti-theological statement.

But if you wanted the example of a decentralized, universally accepted currency that is outside of the control of a central bank, I suggest you look into the bitcoin.

So once again, you're advocating from a position of anarchy. Great. Move to Somalia.

I'm not moving. I own my property, right? Why can't I keep it and live peacefully on it? I like my geographical location. I like my neighbors. I like my job. Am I not entitled to keep these things while advocating peace?

Second, as we've told you before: Somalia has been much better under "anarchy" than it was under the auspices of state control. It's still a third world country, but compare apples to apples. After the state in Somalia fell, the people were able to keep their resources to spend on things that they desired. They were able to get cell-phones at a rate that vastly out paced their closest neighbors. They have better food production and better security. Sure there are pirates working out of some undesirable areas, but they were there and unstopped while the govt was functioning.

If you love total govt control, move to North Korea.
 
2012-07-15 09:36:53 PM

iawai: I'm glad you prefaced those services as "public." There would be roads and protection, and we'd be MORE able to pay for them without the waste of the monopolistic bureaucracy of govt running these services. And wouldn't you rather be able to switch providers if you didn't like the service that was being forced down your throat?

Great platform, I'm glad we cleared that up.


Wait, are you advocating that we privitize roads and the police?

This sounds like a really awful idea. You must not get out much huh?
 
2012-07-15 09:39:56 PM

iawai: I'm not moving. I own my property, right? Why can't I keep it and live peacefully on it? I like my geographical location. I like my neighbors. I like my job. Am I not entitled to keep these things while advocating peace?


You're not your own island. If you want to live where you live, you have to live and work with the people around you. This is a critical flaw in libertarianism.

No man is an island.
 
2012-07-15 09:40:05 PM
And the military, mustn't forget them. Can't have a monopolistic bureaucracy of government taking in funds, so we'll have to make due with local mercenaries.

/"the other kind of useless troops"
 
2012-07-15 10:16:56 PM

Mrtraveler01: iawai: I'm not moving. I own my property, right? Why can't I keep it and live peacefully on it? I like my geographical location. I like my neighbors. I like my job. Am I not entitled to keep these things while advocating peace?

You're not your own island. If you want to live where you live, you have to live and work with the people around you. This is a critical flaw in libertarianism.

No man is an island.


I want to live and work with the people around me more than you do. I want to do so VOLUNTARILY, with mutual agreements as to how things get done.

You want to have some third party come in and force us all to follow some arbitrary rules. No govt is more equipped to solve societal problems than are the people directly involved.

That is the fundamental flaw of statism.
 
2012-07-15 10:17:51 PM

Mrtraveler01: iawai: I'm glad you prefaced those services as "public." There would be roads and protection, and we'd be MORE able to pay for them without the waste of the monopolistic bureaucracy of govt running these services. And wouldn't you rather be able to switch providers if you didn't like the service that was being forced down your throat?

Great platform, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Wait, are you advocating that we privitize roads and the police?

This sounds like a really awful idea. You must not get out much huh?


The roads, the police, defense services, banks, and everything else.

It sounds better than letting an unaccountable monopoly handle all those things, doesn't it?
 
2012-07-15 10:41:35 PM

iawai: The roads, the police, defense services, banks, and everything else.

It sounds better than letting an unaccountable monopoly handle all those things, doesn't it?


It's simply amazing how little you know of history. Otherwise, you'd know that at one time such things were all completely private, and the result was not to the good of society in general, or of the lower classes in particular. Only the wealthy elites profited from that situation. There's a reason these things were made the purview of the government, and that is because however badly the government does through enforcing regulation and public services, it's still better than the situation was when things were completely private and unregulated. "Stop being poor" and "Fark you I got mine" are not effective ways to provide for the general welfare of society.
 
2012-07-15 10:44:21 PM
This is where we reach Poe's Law, Paulistinian Edition.

The point where you're faced with two possibilities: either this motherfarker's trolling, or you're dealing with a cranium so tightly encased in tinfoil that any mention of a central government, in any form, is an object of fear that is not to be considered.

But either way, at least it answers the original question. No, iawai doesn't get out much.
 
2012-07-15 10:57:30 PM

iawai: Mrtraveler01: iawai: I'm not moving. I own my property, right? Why can't I keep it and live peacefully on it? I like my geographical location. I like my neighbors. I like my job. Am I not entitled to keep these things while advocating peace?

You're not your own island. If you want to live where you live, you have to live and work with the people around you. This is a critical flaw in libertarianism.

No man is an island.

I want to live and work with the people around me more than you do. I want to do so VOLUNTARILY, with mutual agreements as to how things get done.

You want to have some third party come in and force us all to follow some arbitrary rules. No govt is more equipped to solve societal problems than are the people directly involved.

That is the fundamental flaw of statism.


I love how you just forget that you got called out for your libertarian naivete.

The show must go on, eh?
 
2012-07-15 11:15:35 PM

Wasteland: This is where we reach Poe's Law, Paulistinian Edition.

The point where you're faced with two possibilities: either this motherfarker's trolling, or you're dealing with a cranium so tightly encased in tinfoil that any mention of a central government, in any form, is an object of fear that is not to be considered.

But either way, at least it answers the original question. No, iawai doesn't get out much.


I'd say trolldinger spends more time online trolling libertarian and Ron Paul supporters (even non-Paul supporters, just those who express a remote amount of empathy towards him) than any libertarian-leaning poster on this forum. Threefold.
 
2012-07-15 11:24:07 PM
Deftoons has given me a serious case of deja vu. I mean he said the exact same thing and got the exact same responses a few weeks ago.
 
2012-07-15 11:29:59 PM

KiltedBastich:

It's simply amazing how little you know of history. Otherwise, you'd know that at one time such things were all completely private,


Uh, you mean the national railroad that was heavily subsidized by the federal government and was awarded federal "land grants", which in turn brought corruption with empowered unions that later had to be squashed?

It wasn't completely private at all. It was public/private - a practice that often breeds corruption, not co-operative partnership.

In regards to the banks - you thought banks were never nationalized? Ever heard of the First National Bank before - a Hamiltonian idea? It was a government charter, under regulatory supervision. Bank notes later started getting taxed in federal vs. state power struggles.

Finally, as for defense services - you might have heard of a decentralized army that fought a nationalized army from Britain at one time. It created early American independence and succeeded.

For someone that is all ga-ga over basic history, you just became the poster child for irony.
 
2012-07-15 11:36:43 PM

Deftoons: Finally, as for defense services - you might have heard of a decentralized army that fought a nationalized army from Britain at one time. It created early American independence and succeeded.



You can't be farking serious.

Are you really about to argue that? Omitting both a) the centralized chain of command involved (which shouldn't exist at all, by his argument), and b) the essential assistance received from a major national power (which is apparently the root of all evil, in iawai's world)?

Christ, man.
 
2012-07-15 11:38:21 PM

Deftoons: Uh, you mean the national railroad that was heavily subsidized by the federal government and was awarded federal "land grants", which in turn brought corruption with empowered unions that later had to be squashed?

It wasn't completely private at all. It was public/private - a practice that often breeds corruption, not co-operative partnership.

In regards to the banks - you thought banks were never nationalized? Ever heard of the First National Bank before - a Hamiltonian idea? It was a government charter, under regulatory supervision. Bank notes later started getting taxed in federal vs. state power struggles.

Finally, as for defense services - you might have heard of a decentralized army that fought a nationalized army from Britain at one time. It created early American independence and succeeded.

For someone that is all ga-ga over basic history, you just became the poster child for irony.


And you just demonstrated that you are a fool. Because however problematic and corrupt such things were, they were nonetheless far better than the completely private institutions controlled by the elites exclusively for their own benefits that they in some cases replaced. Go read up on feudalism and aristocracy and realize that unfettered privatization results only in benefit to the elite. If you are an elite, then good for you, clearly you wish to further the interests of yourself and your peers. But don't sit there and try and tell me that absolute privatization is a good thing when history demonstrates otherwise.
 
2012-07-15 11:53:09 PM

Wasteland: You can't be farking serious.

Are you really about to argue that? Omitting both a) the centralized chain of command involved (which shouldn't exist at all, by his argument), and b) the essential assistance received from a major national power (which is apparently the root of all evil, in iawai's world)?

Christ, man.


Yes, armies have chains of commands, that doesn't contradict what I said. In regards to funding from other countries, it wasn't that funding alone that propped up the armies. Many of them - most of them - were citizen-soldiers dispatched from small colonies.

If you think the same guys that achieved American independence was no different, funding and organizationally speaking, than its British nationalized opponents, go for it and explain away, but you'll be digging your own point into a grave, and we'll be there to watch.
 
2012-07-15 11:58:49 PM

KiltedBastich: And you just demonstrated that you are a fool. Because however problematic and corrupt such things were, they were nonetheless far better than the completely private institutions controlled by the elites exclusively for their own benefits that they in some cases replaced. Go read up on feudalism and aristocracy and realize that unfettered privatization results only in benefit to the elite. If you are an elite, then good for you, clearly you wish to further the interests of yourself and your peers. But don't sit there and try and tell me that absolute privatization is a good thing when history demonstrates otherwise.


Thanks Che Guevara for such enlightening discourse. *eyeroll*
 
2012-07-16 12:02:30 AM

Deftoons: Yes, armies have chains of commands, that doesn't contradict what I said. In regards to funding from other countries, it wasn't that funding alone that propped up the armies. Many of them - most of them - were citizen-soldiers dispatched from small colonies.

If you think the same guys that achieved American independence was no different, funding and organizationally speaking, than its British nationalized opponents, go for it and explain away, but you'll be digging your own point into a grave, and we'll be there to watch.


Again, you are a fool. Go read up on the nature of armies in the days before professional national armies run by the government. They were private militias levied by particular nobles. This led to many problems: irregular training, irregular equipment, poor integration into the chain of command in the event of war, poor discipline, and divided loyalties. Many nobles maintained large standing militias as a way to promote their own power, and more than one civil war started when such a noble chose not to heed the commands of their monarchs.

There's a reason professional armies in Europe became the norm; they stomped all over the irregular household troops armies of their opponents.

The reason the irregular American forces defeated the British are almost exactly the same as the reasons why the USA lost in Vietnam and why the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan is so problematic today. It is very difficult to fight a guerrila war against troops with local support and supply when you are operating at the end of an extremely long chain of command, in terms of both logistics and strategy, espcially if you factor in the lack of communications at the time of the revolution.

You appear to have some background in American history. You also appear to be incredibly ignorant about history more generally. It's amusing to see, and quite typical.
 
2012-07-16 12:05:40 AM

Deftoons: Thanks Che Guevara for such enlightening discourse. *eyeroll*


Fool. I am not a communist. I am a pragmatist. Ideology is worthless as a determinant of action. Results are what matters. Absolute privatization results in oppression, deprivation and misery, as does absolute nationalization. Pragmatic compromise to seek the best solutions for any given set of circumstances mandates that some situations see better results from regulated private enterprise, and some situations see best results from direct government action. If you were not so narrow-minded and blinded by your ideology, you would understand this.
 
2012-07-16 12:20:17 AM
Wastleland and Schrodinger: 1
Deftoons and iawai: 0
 
2012-07-16 12:23:18 AM

Deftoons: Yes, armies have chains of commands, that doesn't contradict what I said. In regards to funding from other countries, it wasn't that funding alone that propped up the armies. Many of them - most of them - were citizen-soldiers dispatched from small colonies.

If you think the same guys that achieved American independence was no different, funding and organizationally speaking, than its British nationalized opponents, go for it and explain away, but you'll be digging your own point into a grave, and we'll be there to watch.



...or maybe you need to scroll up, read the original posting that this concerns, and understand the argument you just blundered into the middle of. This clown isn't just advocating decentralization, but full-scale privatization. Hell, I thought I was joking when I first quoted Machiavelli on mercenary and auxilliary troops, but apparently I was mistaken.

That's the charitable interpretation. The uncharitable one is that you actually intended to argue that the Continental Army was structurally decentralized. (Not "no different...than its British nationalized opponents," which was not the claim that was made, but decentralized as opposed to nationalized.)
 
2012-07-16 12:27:10 AM

Ray_Peranus: Deftoons and iawai: 0


Well no, now, that's not really fair either.

I disagree vehemently with Def on any number of subjects, but I don't think he's farking insane. I'm not prepared to make that same claim about iawai.
 
2012-07-16 02:39:21 AM

Deftoons: I'd say trolldinger spends more time online trolling libertarian and Ron Paul supporters (even non-Paul supporters, just those who express a remote amount of empathy towards him) than any libertarian-leaning poster on this forum. Threefold.


I find it amusing that you waste more time explaining why you shouldn't answer a straight forward question than actually answering the question.

I asked you to name the currency the government would tax and pay out under a competing currency system. There is literally no currency that would take you longer than two seconds to type out, whether it's US dollars, bottle caps, gold, etc. If it's a currency that we are unfamiliar with but which has been seriously discussed in the past, then add a minute to check google for a link.

There are three basic possibilities here:

1) Competing currency does not allow for any government expenditures, and is basically a call for anarchy.

2) Competing currency does call for government expenditures, but libertarians are too utterly clueless to say how this will be possible under their proposal. Which is precisely why no one has any reason to take them seriously, ever.

3) Competing currency does call for government expenditures, and libertarians aren't clueless and they actually have thought this through, at which point you should already have both the answer and the link readily available.

Which is it? Because right now it looks like #2.
 
2012-07-16 02:49:12 AM

iawai: There would be roads and protection, and we'd be MORE able to pay for them without the waste of the monopolistic bureaucracy of govt running these services.


Right, so you're calling for anarchy, glad we have that settled.

Businesses CAN, TODAY, refuse to accept dollars.

They can refuse the transaction from taking place at all. They cannot refuse legal tender as payment on debt. That's the legal definition for what legal tender is.

Besides, what is the point of arguing that a currency must be "universal"?

Because that's the entire point of having money in the first place, you know, medium of exchange of all. If money is not widely accepted for exchanges, then it is not useful as money.

Second, as we've told you before: Somalia has been much better under "anarchy" than it was under the auspices of state control.

Uh-huh.
 
2012-07-16 04:55:06 AM
Oh, and Paultards: Ron Paul was never going to legalize weed. That's just something he told ya'll to sell books because his fellow Republicans (yes, he is still a Republican) over-saturated the Tea Party market and he went for the mostly untapped "Libertarian" crowd.

It's still amazing that you guys can look at a career Republican and think he's some kind of outsider.
 
2012-07-16 09:32:24 AM

KiltedBastich: And you just demonstrated that you are a fool. Because however problematic and corrupt such things were, they were nonetheless far better than the completely private institutions controlled by the elites exclusively for their own benefits that they in some cases replaced. Go read up on feudalism and aristocracy and realize that unfettered privatization results only in benefit to the elite. If you are an elite, then good for you, clearly you wish to further the interests of yourself and your peers. But don't sit there and try and tell me that absolute privatization is a good thing when history demonstrates otherwise.


First off:

-What examples are you talking about, specifically, where a free country creates feudalism and aristocracy? You realize that a free country, where the government protects rights (not entitle services), and feudalism, have nothing to do with each other? And you're the guy calling ME a fool, what an utterly laughable response.

-As far as I'm aware, it's because of countries with freer markets, instead of heavily regulated nationalist countries, that have the greatest inventions that bring quality to our lives, not Atilla the Hun feudalism.

You're like Republican of the left - when they call Obama and the Democrats "socialists" and "communists," except on your end you are calling anyone who advocates a free country with extreme sound bytes like "feudalism" and "aristocracy" and "anarchy" when you don't even know what those words even mean.
 
2012-07-16 09:39:25 AM

Wasteland: That's the charitable interpretation. The uncharitable one is that you actually intended to argue that the Continental Army was structurally decentralized. (Not "no different...than its British nationalized opponents," which was not the claim that was made, but decentralized as opposed to nationalized.)


I'm not referring to just the Continental Army. Achieving American independence was through various decentralized methods. Once again - many of them were "citizen-soldiers" from small colonies. Not to mention the minutemen, along with the help of other citizens along the eastern seaboard; achieving American independence from Britain was not handled through large tax-and-dole nationalistic methods.
 
Displayed 50 of 125 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report