Hope Over Fear?

[ViRedd]

That was an excellent post, TBT. Thanks.

Another concept that's important to understand is ... what exactly is a "dollar?"

A "dollar" is nothing more than a term of measurement, not unlike a "pint," a "quart," or a "gallon." If someone were to say: "Would you give me a quart?" The proper response would be: "A quart of what, right?" Therefore, if someone were to say: "The price of this item is ten dollars, the correct response should be: "Ten dollars of what?" Of course, in our brainwashed society it is assumed that ten "dollars" would be a ten dollar federal reserve note, so I guess if one were to ask "ten dollars of what? ... the answer would be: Ten dollars of government issued script that has a dead president's picture on it that is constantly, by plan, declining in value.

Vi

PS: I'm back to reading your book, man. You are so right on, its amazing.

 

[Spitzered]

"Scenes are now to take place as will open the eyes of credulity and of insanity itself, to the dangers of a paper medium abandoned to the discretion of avarice and of swindlers." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:189


"The evils of this deluge of paper money are not to be removed until our citizens are generally and radically instructed in their cause and consequences, and silence by their authority the interested clamors and sophistry of speculating, shaving, and banking institutions. Till then, we must be content to return quoad hoc to the savage state, to recur to barter in the exchange of our property for want of a stable common measure of value, that now in use being less fixed than the beads and wampum of the Indian, and to deliver up our citizens, their property and their labor, passive victims to the swindling tricks of bankers and mountebankers." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:185


"The maxim of buying nothing without the money in our pockets to pay for it would make of our country one of the happiest on earth." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1787. ME 6:192

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1325.htm

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

That was an excellent post, TBT. Thanks.

Another concept that's important to understand is ... what exactly is a "dollar?"

A "dollar" is nothing more than a term of measurement, not unlike a "pint," a "quart," or a "gallon." If someone were to say: "Would you give me a quart?" The proper response would be: "A quart of what, right?" Therefore, if someone were to say: "The price of this item is ten dollars, the correct response should be: "Ten dollars of what?" Of course, in our brainwashed society it is assumed that ten "dollars" would be a ten dollar federal reserve note, so I guess if one were to ask "ten dollars of what? ... the answer would be: Ten dollars of government issued script that has a dead president's picture on it that is constantly, by plan, declining in value.

Vi

PS: I'm back to reading your book, man. You are so right on, its amazing.

Thanks

Though it's kind of interesting. I never realized what economic philosophy I was adhering to until I started reading Ron Paul's Pillars of Freedom but it's now evident to me that I've picked up the Austrian School of Economics.

Which is kind of interesting, because much of what Ron Paul has said has been more or less my personal set of beliefs for the last 7 - 8 years.

Of course, I've also had the luxury of being willing to look at ideas and discard the ones that don't make sense or don't fit in with the empirical evidence of the real world.

Socialism or Statism is one such idea that doesn't fit the empirical evidence. Claims that the state is going to magically make everything better doesn't make sense. The Russians tried it, and forced a lot of Eastern Europe and Eastern Germany to try it also. The result for Eastern Germany was 50 years of poverty. The result in Russia was that the workers were lucky to have shoes when they needed them, and food when they were hungry, and access to quality medical care.

Of course, it's more interesting is that I've hated politics for ever. I still hate politics. Neither party is truly qualified to run this country. Both of them are taking us down the dark road to ruin.

What amazes me more is that there are people that can not understand that. People that have failed to establish basic knowledge of the philosophy that our nation was established under, and what happened to the countries that adhered to other philosophies (statism/fascism/socialism.)

History has thousands of examples of statist nations failing, and none that succeed.

The left may throw out Europe, but that's not an example of countries succeeding the quality of life, and the quality of their medical care has been sliding lower compared to ours for the last 50 years.

The left might point at Capitalist China, but fail to understand that to describe China as Socialist is now incorrect. If anything China is more capitalist than the United States.

Even the old Eastern Bloc, the very place where Socialism held sway the longest, is now Capitalist.

Why do the politicians insist on trying the failed ideas of Statism out here?

Are they incapable of seeing the empirical evidence presented by the failure of Statism?

Soviet Russia - Failed - Warfare/Welfare Empire
Nazi Germany - Failed - Warfare/Welfare Empire
Fascist Italy - Failed - Warfare/Welfare Empire
Red China - Switched to Capitalism
Statist Europe - Failing - slow erosion of the quality of life of the middle class, and a continual erosion of their purchasing power due to high taxes.

 

[medicineman]

Thanks

Though it's kind of interesting. I never realized what economic philosophy I was adhering to until I started reading Ron Paul's Pillars of Freedom but it's now evident to me that I've picked up the Austrian School of Economics.

Which is kind of interesting, because much of what Ron Paul has said has been more or less my personal set of beliefs for the last 7 - 8 years.

Of course, I've also had the luxury of being willing to look at ideas and discard the ones that don't make sense or don't fit in with the empirical evidence of the real world.

Socialism or Statism is one such idea that doesn't fit the empirical evidence. Claims that the state is going to magically make everything better doesn't make sense. The Russians tried it, and forced a lot of Eastern Europe and Eastern Germany to try it also. The result for Eastern Germany was 50 years of poverty. The result in Russia was that the workers were lucky to have shoes when they needed them, and food when they were hungry, and access to quality medical care.

Of course, it's more interesting is that I've hated politics for ever. I still hate politics. Neither party is truly qualified to run this country. Both of them are taking us down the dark road to ruin.

What amazes me more is that there are people that can not understand that. People that have failed to establish basic knowledge of the philosophy that our nation was established under, and what happened to the countries that adhered to other philosophies (statism/fascism/socialism.)

History has thousands of examples of statist nations failing, and none that succeed.

The left may throw out Europe, but that's not an example of countries succeeding the quality of life, and the quality of their medical care has been sliding lower compared to ours for the last 50 years.

The left might point at Capitalist China, but fail to understand that to describe China as Socialist is now incorrect. If anything China is more capitalist than the United States.

Even the old Eastern Bloc, the very place where Socialism held sway the longest, is now Capitalist.

Why do the politicians insist on trying the failed ideas of Statism out here?

Are they incapable of seeing the empirical evidence presented by the failure of Statism?

Soviet Russia - Failed - Warfare/Welfare Empire
Nazi Germany - Failed - Warfare/Welfare Empire
Fascist Italy - Failed - Warfare/Welfare Empire
Red China - Switched to Capitalism
Statist Europe - Failing - slow erosion of the quality of life of the middle class, and a continual erosion of their purchasing power due to high taxes.

Give us your best Idea of a government that would work for "all the people", Thanks. Be specific, lay out the economy and social structure as you see it, Keynesian or otherwise. I'll do the same if you'd like, after I critique your ideas. We may have more in common than you think.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Give us your best Idea of a government that would work for "all the people", Thanks. Be specific, lay out the economy and social structure as you see it, Keynesian or otherwise. I'll do the same if you'd like, after I critique your ideas. We may have more in common than you think.

I doubt it, there is no such thing as a government that will work for "all the people" as you define it.

The ideal government in my book, on the other hand does the minimum amount of interfering in the lives of its citizens, and does not attempt to punish people for being successful.

For starters a return to the Constitution of the United States, slightly modified to make it clear that slavery and involuntary servitude are unacceptable would be good.

No income taxes, and clear clauses stating that income taxes will not be allowed.

No Social programs like Social Security, Welfare, or other services.

Amendments that require complete transparency in government with out allowing for any provisions that would allow for black budget items.
If the government doesn't want actions public then it is probably safe to assume that it should not be doing them.

Amendments that
A. Defines Education as the Responsibility of the States specifically, and an area where the federal government has no business intruding.
B. Defines Healthcare as the responsibility of the free market and prohibits the States and the Federal Government from interfering due to a fact that such actions would be violation of contracts.




Specific laws prohibiting the government from interfering in the market, either by
A. Passing laws that discriminate for or against products.
B. Taxing profits from different sources differently
C. Taxing different types of income differently.

Strict laws dictating that Money must be backed by Gold and Silver, and that any attempts to decouple the monetary supply from Gold and Silver will result in a dissolution of the government.

Revisions that
A. Allow for the recall of the President by popular vote.
B. Allow for the recall of Representatives by popular vote.
C. Allow for the recall of Senators by the state legislatures (which will be once again responsible for voting them in.)

Legislation that
A. Caps All Government Salaries at no more than 2x the amount that the average American is Earning.
B. Mandates that the government must operate at a surplus of 10% of revenues (that is spending must be 90% of total tax revenues) with the balance being saved.
C. Prohibits the creation of Defined Benefit Pensions for government workers and instead uses Defined Contribution Pensions, or allows for government employees to opt out all together.
D. defines crimes as only being actions that lead to the harm of other people, and not as actions that may cause harm, or could cause harm.

I could go on, but I think that's a good stopping point.

Though I'm not interested in your criticisms, I can already imagine them.

So, what's your ideal government, Med?

 

[medicineman]

Below are the things I would consider keeping in my ideal government. These are the only things because as you've shown in your other ideas, any social programs are out

Revisions that
A. Allow for the recall of the President by popular vote.
B. Allow for the recall of Representatives by popular vote.
C. Allow for the recall of Senators by the state legislatures (which will be once again responsible for voting them in.)

The ideal government in my book, on the other hand does the minimum amount of interfering in the lives of its citizens, and does not attempt to punish people for being successful.

For starters a return to the Constitution of the United States, slightly modified to make it clear that slavery and involuntary servitude are unacceptable would be good.

Amendments that require complete transparency in government with out allowing for any provisions that would allow for black budget items.
If the government doesn't want actions public then it is probably safe to assume that it should not be doing them.

D. defines crimes as only being actions that lead to the harm of other people, and not as actions that may cause harm, or could cause harm.

Now here is where we differ:
There must be an income tax that acts according to income. The higher the income, the heavier the tax. It's called a progressive income tax.
There has to be a return to the government printing it's own money and ridding itself of the private bankers called the FED.
A social program that works to transfer people from welfare to work, in liveable wage jobs. Food stamps for the needy, housing vouchers for the needy.
A government run medical system that covers everyone, the wealthy can have their own doctors and insurance if they want red carpet medical.
Incentives for businesses in the form of tax credits for hiring more people and keeping jobs in the USA.
Capping executive pay to no more than the POTUS. Limiting bonuses to no more than 25% of their base pay. And if companies don't turn a profit, absolutely no bonuses, and the very high possibility of being fired.
A government that not only is responsive to it's constituents, but has their best interest in mind.
Setting up a national retirement program that would actually provide a living wage upon retirement, similar to SS but with more money going into it and laws prohibiting any other usage of those funds.
Setting limits and tarrifs on foriegn goods/trade, bringing the trade balance back under control, dollar for dollar trade deals, IE we buy X amount of dollars from you, and you reciprocate by buying X amount of dollars from us. Thereby forcing other countries to raise their standard of living instead of forcing us to lower ours ( I'm no economist, but it would be better for everyone if we could all live as well as us).

Maybe a lottery type of electing instead of voting for some positions like representatives, that would give more of a peoples feel to government. Might work out, say take 50 qualified applicants and draw straws, or have them pick a number out of a hat. That would eliminate a lot of graft and corruption, plus campaign funding. Take the first 50 to apply.
I'm sure, like you, I could ramble on about all the little changes that are needed, I want a more progressive government and you basically want next to anarchy. The first thing we both want is government responsive to the citizenry. Uhhh, good luck with that,eh?

 

[ViRedd]

TBT's government = Liberty.

Med's government = Totalitarianism.

Period.

Vi

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Below are the things I would consider keeping in my ideal government. These are the only things because as you've shown in your other ideas, any social programs are out

Revisions that
A. Allow for the recall of the President by popular vote.
B. Allow for the recall of Representatives by popular vote.
C. Allow for the recall of Senators by the state legislatures (which will be once again responsible for voting them in.)

The ideal government in my book, on the other hand does the minimum amount of interfering in the lives of its citizens, and does not attempt to punish people for being successful.

For starters a return to the Constitution of the United States, slightly modified to make it clear that slavery and involuntary servitude are unacceptable would be good.

Amendments that require complete transparency in government with out allowing for any provisions that would allow for black budget items.
If the government doesn't want actions public then it is probably safe to assume that it should not be doing them.

D. defines crimes as only being actions that lead to the harm of other people, and not as actions that may cause harm, or could cause harm.

Now here is where we differ:
There must be an income tax that acts according to income. The higher the income, the heavier the tax. It's called a progressive income tax.
There has to be a return to the government printing it's own money and ridding itself of the private bankers called the FED.
A social program that works to transfer people from welfare to work, in liveable wage jobs. Food stamps for the needy, housing vouchers for the needy.
A government run medical system that covers everyone, the wealthy can have their own doctors and insurance if they want red carpet medical.
Incentives for businesses in the form of tax credits for hiring more people and keeping jobs in the USA.
Capping executive pay to no more than the POTUS. Limiting bonuses to no more than 25% of their base pay. And if companies don't turn a profit, absolutely no bonuses, and the very high possibility of being fired.
A government that not only is responsive to it's constituents, but has their best interest in mind.
Setting up a national retirement program that would actually provide a living wage upon retirement, similar to SS but with more money going into it and laws prohibiting any other usage of those funds.
Setting limits and tarrifs on foriegn goods/trade, bringing the trade balance back under control, dollar for dollar trade deals, IE we buy X amount of dollars from you, and you reciprocate by buying X amount of dollars from us. Thereby forcing other countries to raise their standard of living instead of forcing us to lower ours ( I'm no economist, but it would be better for everyone if we could all live as well as us).

Maybe a lottery type of electing instead of voting for some positions like representatives, that would give more of a peoples feel to government. Might work out, say take 50 qualified applicants and draw straws, or have them pick a number out of a hat. That would eliminate a lot of graft and corruption, plus campaign funding. Take the first 50 to apply.
I'm sure, like you, I could ramble on about all the little changes that are needed, I want a more progressive government and you basically want next to anarchy. The first thing we both want is government responsive to the citizenry. Uhhh, good luck with that,eh?

Well, as history shows, it is much easier to have a government that is responsive to the citizenry if it is limited, small, and controlled. It is only when you have an uncontrolled bureaucracy, that despite all rational intelligent people understanding that its continued growth will destroy its country like a parasite, that you have a government that is out of control, and one that people want to place limits on.

It is only when you have a government with out sound logical limits to its power that you even after to address the issue of controlling the government, because only in that case does the government routinely interfere with the lives of its citizens.