bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Perhaps because of his long and solid political record? Way to avoid the argument though.
And ironic you say that, as an Obama supporter. Obama has changed his stance on a number of issues. Of course, Obama and McCain aren't held to the same standards as Paul, not around here at least.
Please, the discount rate is nothing more than a target rate set for transactions with other banks, banks who belong to the Fed system. Money borrowed from the Fed during the discount process is the same money they paid into the Fed to begin with, or money the Fed raises itself in the market or from the Treasury.
How is the Fed private? It's owned by every member bank in the system, which numbers in the thousands. It is beholden to Congress and can be removed at any time.
daniel1113
Diamond Member
- Jun 6, 2003
- 6,448
- 0
- 0
The fact that the FED is a quasi-private entity is common knowledge. To deny that is beyond ignorant.
Should it be? It's a bank, making sure other banks, are stable and have liquidity. What's wrong with that?
I didn't know the government should control all of the banks, providing them liquidity directly.
*shrug*
Interpret what I have to say however you wish. That doesn't change anything. The people are the reason why Libertarianism would ultimately fail due to abuse and exploitation of freedom for self gain. Hell, we are far from a Libertarian country now and you see it happening all over the place. It's not like the current government is forcing them to be greedy and abusive. They are doing it themselves. That sort of thing is not just going to change because we give the current abusers more power and freedom to do so. What you are asking for is something which will run on the hopes and dreams that people will magically stop being so incredibly greedy. Not a chance.
Believe it or not, deep down inside, I want what you want. I hope for and dream for the kind of freedom that you want. However, my hopes and dreams do not overshadow the truth of what people are willing to do out of greed. If there is one constant throughout the history of this country and possibly the world, it would be that greed takes precedence over everything including the respect for their own freedom and especially the freedoms of others. When you abuse freedom, it gets taken away which is exactly what happened in this country historically and it is exactly what would happen again if we gave the freedoms back to the people for a 2nd try.
Most Libertarians I know constantly hammer what the government should or should not do because that is the part that they know they have a shot at controlling. Beyond the law and the letter, they cannot control the people. All they can do is hope and pray that the people do the right thing when presented with the freedom that a Libertarian government would have to offer. I have seen no evidence that supports that the people will naturally do what they are supposed to do in order to maintain the freedoms that you want to give them.
People are not stupid like you think I am claiming them to be. I know they are smart. At least, I know enough of them are smart. They are smart enough to identify the loopholes which allow them to abuse their freedom for wealth and other forms of self gain and they are greedy enough to actually go through with it as they sit around justifying to themselves that what they are doing is perfectly fine regardless of how it effects other people because they have the right and freedom to do so. That is what happened in our past and those who got the short end of the stick stood up and demanded change just like we are demanding change now. They demanded change, control, fair treatment, and the preservation of their own freedoms which were being beaten with a stick constantly by those who abused the system. Sound familiar? Guess who they asked to step up to bat? The government! They demanded more government. That's what the people wanted. That's what they got and that is exactly what they would end up asking for again.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
...and we will continue to vote for what we believe is the lesser evil until someone who is truly better comes along. Just because someone that represents a party which is supposed to be composed of beliefs that you support is running for president doesn't make them the lesser evil. There are plenty of extremely crappy representatives from all parties that I would shudder at the thought of voting for regardless of which party I happen to support the most.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
I thought the rallying call of the Democrats was that we currently are in the era of robber barons. So how's that fiat currency working out for you?
I'm not saying gold is the answer, but the current unfettered creation of money steals as much money from you and I every year as "robber barons" would.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
Under Ron Paul, there would be no backpack because there'd be no highway for the backpack to be shipped to the local store because building highways isn't a governmental duty enshrined in the Constitution.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
You're right, the federal government should not be in the road building business. Let states do it. And states can choose whether they want to do it or leave it to counties or cities. That's a good thing. Do you need the feds to wipe your ass too, nancy boy?
The Fed has never been a break against Congressional spending. It never has, nor ever will, serve in that capacity. You are confusing the Treasury with the Fed.
The Fed's sole responsibility is to ensure there is sufficient liquidity in the banking system to meet the requirements of the banks and (unfortunately) to moderate (or encourage) growth through the availability of said liquidity.
Money supply is not debt.
How about we devolve to a bunch of loosly allied nation states constantly at war, with no central authority to actually move everybody forward? That's the ticket, let's be a completely disaggregated "country", lose our position of power because nobody will have streamlined laws, and nobody will invest here because it is too chaotic.
Fricking libertopians.
It doesn't matter how full of ourselves we are or how humble we might be. What matters in this argument is what the majority of the American people are like.
The day you can convince me that the American people are not greedy enough to abuse and exploit the freedoms you want them to have is the day I will lean more towards the idea that your version of Libertarianism might actually stand a chance. So far, there is a tremendous amount of history which suggests otherwise whether it be stories from the news or just a story of an observation that I noticed while I was out casually enjoying my day. People take advantage of what they can all of the time for self gain. The majority of these people are either not fully aware of how what they do effects others or they just don't care because it is their "freedom and their right!" Usually, it is a combination of both.
I am open ears for arguments which convince me otherwise. I know I sound really cynical, but the truth is that I want to believe that I am wrong. I just don't have nearly enough material which supports it. If people were responsible enough to handle that level of freedom, then it would have never been taken away in the first place. Remember, it was the people who demanded that it be taken away first. The government gradually followed through afterward.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
The first link is to a op-ed by Paul, which I read. He states nothing at all that would even resemble the state governing religiously. In fact, what he is saying is that the federal government aught to stay out of the churches. If you found something in contrast, then quote what he says.
The second link is an op-ed, on atheism.com mind you, that is full of bullshit. Like this..
It doesn't even make sense. If he believes that abortion and gay marriage should be left up to the states, how in the hell does that translate to him using the federal government to promote traditional marriage and criminalize abortion? This statement is so illogical and stupid that I didn't even bother reading the rest of it.
Capt Caveman
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2005
- 34,543
- 651
- 126
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
He doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. Ron is a poor excuse for a Constitutionalist.
Is it a surprise?
not to mention, there are hundreds of references to it in the writings of the Founding Fathers, many of whom weren't really strongly religious.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter