Worthwhile Possible GOP nominees

[Mint]

Which I absolutely reject. Merely because the Branch Dividians were opposed to the Federal government doesn't mean I'm their ally; if they controlled the central government, I'd be dead, as both an atheist and an "abortionist" (an ex of mine had one). I'm not about to hop on every hot cock that proclaims itself opposed to the current government simply because you're all lubed up. Our reasons for opposing the government are not at all related.

And why would I want to ally with segregationists? Segregationism is enforced by a (decentralized, local) State; and nanny-statism is nanny-statism, wherever it is practiced.

Again, I do not condone all or even most of their beliefs. I'm simply pointing out that historically there has been an anti government, often paranoid, undercurrent to a lot of the right. And I could point out how many minority groups I personally fall under too although I won't since it's redundant and you don't believe me anyway. Why I'm bothering to reply to you I don't know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've only been able to vote the last 3 years. Explaining how my views have changed over the years would take too long but the short answer is I started out fairly mainstream Republican and over the course of Bush's 1st term abandoned those views only to become about as repulsed by the Democratic Party.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It can be. You have to remember the backlash to the DHS report awhile ago that specified that veterans, anti abortion protesters, etc. were potential 'threats' just a few months ago. Or how about the '90s? Remember the sympathies a lot of the right (ESPECIALLY a lot of fundamentalists) showed towards the branch davidians, militia movement, etc. and hostility towards Clinton's anti terrorism proposals? And that was just in the recent past, you can look towards the Goldwaterites, segregationists, and anti-New Deal types for other examples of the anti-(federal) government right. Obviously I don't condone all or even most of those views, I'm just pointing out obvious historical realities.

Which I absolutely reject. Merely because the Branch Dividians were opposed to the Federal government doesn't mean I'm their ally; if they controlled the central government, I'd be dead, as both an atheist and an "abortionist" (an ex of mine had one). I'm not about to hop on every hot cock that proclaims itself opposed to the current government simply because you're all lubed up. Our reasons for opposing the government are not at all related.

And why would I want to ally with segregationists? Segregationism is enforced by a (decentralized, local) State; and nanny-statism is nanny-statism, wherever it is practiced.

Incidentally: where were you during the Bush years?

     Indeed. The left is outraged by the abuses of the right. The right is outraged by the abuses of the left. Only libertarians are outraged by the abuses of both. I shall remain unimpressed with both wings until the day one of them wholeheartedly supports a libertarian for President. I think we can tell that day will be long in coming given a lot of Republican reactions to a prospective Gary Johnson candidacy.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Mint, aren't you still a Democrat?

[Scam of God]

Which I absolutely reject. Merely because the Branch Dividians were opposed to the Federal government doesn't mean I'm their ally; if they controlled the central government, I'd be dead, as both an atheist and an "abortionist" (an ex of mine had one). I'm not about to hop on every hot cock that proclaims itself opposed to the current government simply because you're all lubed up. Our reasons for opposing the government are not at all related.

And why would I want to ally with segregationists? Segregationism is enforced by a (decentralized, local) State; and nanny-statism is nanny-statism, wherever it is practiced.

Again, I do not condone all or even most of their beliefs. I'm simply pointing out that historically there has been an anti government, often paranoid, undercurrent to a lot of the right. And I could point out how many minority groups I personally fall under too although I won't since it's redundant and you don't believe me anyway. Why I'm bothering to reply to you I don't know.

And there is just as equally a powerful anti-statist undercurrent to much (if not most of) the Left - have you ever even read Rothbard's The Betrayal of the American Right? Would you even risk disillusionment by reading it?

[Mint]

Mint, aren't you still a Democrat?

Technically yes.

Anyway I'm sorry if it seems I'm slow to reply it's just hard with this connection and server.

[CJK]

Why don't you tell us what positons these people have since pretty much nobody knows who these people are (besides Ron Paul, who's a non-starter).

[Mint]

And there is just as equally a powerful anti-statist undercurrent to much (if not most of) the Left - have you ever even read Rothbard's The Betrayal of the American Right? Would you even risk disillusionment by reading it?

I haven't but I'm under no delusions about what Reagan and co. have done. Why would I be? Nearly every area of government continued to grow with their blessings regardless of all the rhetoric about welfare or entitlements to say nothing of the war on drugs, misguided foreign intervention, s&l bail outs, etc. The mainstream conservative movement has had no real response to any of this the last 20-15 years outside of apologism and (at best) token admonishing about 'spending.'

[Scam of God]

And there is just as equally a powerful anti-statist undercurrent to much (if not most of) the Left - have you ever even read Rothbard's The Betrayal of the American Right? Would you even risk disillusionment by reading it?

I haven't but I'm under no delusions about what Reagan and co. have done. Why would I be? Nearly every area of government continued to grow with their blessings regardless of all the rhetoric about welfare or entitlements to say nothing of the war on drugs, misguided foreign intervention, s&l bail outs, etc. The mainstream conservative movement has had no real response to any of this the last 20-15 years outside of apologism and (at best) token admonishing about 'spending.'

You're only presenting part of the picture. Rothbard illustrates, quite clearly, how right-libertarianism was purely the invention of the historical oddity that was the Cold War; and how, prior to the 1950s, libertarianism was a political movement of the left, and was quite at home allying itself with the socialist movement, for instance, in its opposition to the First World War. And even on economic issues, the libertarian movement was not nearly so far to the right - H.L. Mencken, American libertarianism's bard, frequently rampaged against plutocrats, favored the five-day workweek, and opposed military strike-breaking. My goal is to re-orient libertarianism back to this natural, historical position.

[Vepres]

The 9/11 truthers are enough to scare me.

He has more on average supporting him, but really you'll find plenty of 9/11 truthers in the Democratic Party too. It's a pretty widespread conspiracy theory.

Even so, when Paul was asked if he believed in the conspiracy theory that there was a plot to create a North American Union, he basically gave a non-answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Welcome to the Republican Party.

But seriously, how is this all that different than the other candidates? All of the Republicans last year at least paid lip service to allowing 'intelligent design' in schools and supporting the 'defense of marriage' crowd regardless of their personal views.[/quote]

Which is why I dislike most Republicans. However, I will tolerate ones who don't seem to really believe that stuff (McCain for example).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe, but is non-intervention any more radical than supporting pre-emptive action in Iraq, Pakistan or Iran? Both parties to varying extents have endorsed both, which would have been unthinkable just a few decades ago. I would argue a return to a position of neutrality is no more extreme than any of those positions and has far more evidence in support of it (re: blowback).[/quote]

I agree with neutrality, but Paul suggested that if we just ignored the Middle East 9/11 wouldn't have happened. That's absurd. While agree some were motivated by our intervention in the Middle East, others are just religious extremists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not really going to say much on this other than that it's obviously not his work (probably Lew Rockwell's). That and the NAACP has vouched for him before.[/quote]

The point is that Paul did nothing about it, though I do doubt he wrote it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a fair point, but I would respond that having nothing backing our currency whatsoever is equally if not more problematic. Right now we're basically just coasting on the presumption of interdependence as well as the perceived stability of the dollar, but if the G20 or OPEC are any indication there's no guarantees that will be the case forever. I'd also point to the massive devaluation of the dollar during the '70s as indicative of the rashness of Nixon's decision to completely end the gold standard.

If anything I think we should have a currency based off multiple commodities.[/quote]

I'm not saying our system doesn't have problems, I just feel Paul's doesn't really solve anything and has problems of its own IMO.

I could see your suggestion working under the right circumstances.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even the most committed Keynesians acknowledge that the Federal Reserve's over-expansion of the money supply (60%) was a contributing factor behind the stock boom of the '20s (particularly the early part of the decade) and resulting crash. They might argue that we needed to free up liquidity and that the rate hike they instituted in 1931 was far more of a factor, but you can't really argue that government manipulation wasn't at least somewhat to blame.

In any case, it is possible to have too much of a good thing. If you maintain a 'boom' indefinitely you can grossly distort prices and encourage malinvestment. That's a fact that's now abundantly clear when we look at what occurred between 1998-2003 (arguably longer) so I would not say having less recessions is necessarily good.
[/quote]

I agree the money expansion was a factor in the 1929 crash, and I think the Fed needs to be reformed, but bubbles aren't always negative. The tech bubble in the late-90s brought many technological innovations that are still useful that may have taken far longer to appear were it not for the bubble.

My point is, our current system has problems, but while I agree with some of Paul's criticisms of the status-quo, I think his solutions wouldn't solve anything.

Plus, you must admit that his personality and style make him come off as a bit crazy

[Mint]

Any currency issued by any human entity is only going to be as trustworthy as that entity. If you only trust gold, then only transact in gold. Don't own any currency at all. Don't own any notes of any kind. Own only gold.

Even assuming people had the resources (or motivation) to do so, what do you think would happen if significant percentage of the population reverted to hard currency? The government would declare an emergency almost immediately and confiscate it.

I'll refute the rest of your points soon enough, unfortunately between the network I'm on + this server that's easier said than done.

[Scam of God]

And there is just as equally a powerful anti-statist undercurrent to much (if not most of) the Left - have you ever even read Rothbard's The Betrayal of the American Right? Would you even risk disillusionment by reading it?

I haven't but I'm under no delusions about what Reagan and co. have done. Why would I be? Nearly every area of government continued to grow with their blessings regardless of all the rhetoric about welfare or entitlements to say nothing of the war on drugs, misguided foreign intervention, s&l bail outs, etc. The mainstream conservative movement has had no real response to any of this the last 20-15 years outside of apologism and (at best) token admonishing about 'spending.'

You're only presenting part of the picture. Rothbard illustrates, quite clearly, how right-libertarianism was purely the invention of the historical oddity that was the Cold War; and how, prior to the 1950s, libertarianism was a political movement of the left, and was quite at home allying itself with the socialist movement, for instance, in its opposition to the First World War. And even on economic issues, the libertarian movement was not nearly so far to the right - H.L. Mencken, American libertarianism's bard, frequently rampaged against plutocrats, favored the five-day workweek, and opposed military strike-breaking. My goal is to re-orient libertarianism back to this natural, historical position.

[Mint]

I'm not ignoring you Einzige, I'm being logged off every few minutes here. Anyway, I'm not saying you don't have a point, classical liberalism by definition was on the 'left' even if the latter was influenced at least in part by prevailing ideology. But I think you have to factor in the New Deal too, which caused many of those people to be considered on the 'right' in short order even if their actual views didn't change.  

Nor do I think deviation from a pure free market ideology is incompatible (or undesirable to couple) with Libertarianism. I've indicated that I support some programs and collective bargaining at a local level.. In part my views have changed simply because I no longer view the federal government as being incompetent if not hostile when it comes to addressing those issues.

[Scam of God]

I'm not ignoring you Einzige, I'm being logged off every few minutes here. Anyway, I'm not saying you don't have a point, classical liberalism by definition was on the 'right' even if the latter was influenced at least in part by prevailing ideology. But I think you have to factor in the New Deal too, which caused many of those people to be considered on the 'right' in short order even if their actual views didn't change.

Sure, and Rothbard goes into that. But is the New Deal currently in force? No. Is Obama's ad hoc coalition likely to last nearly as long as Roosevelt's? Certainly not. And when the inevitable reaction comes, what parties will be the key players in it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your problem isn't on economics; it's on social issues. One quite simply cannot have free markets without first having free men with free minds.

[Mint]

Sure, and Rothbard goes into that. But is the New Deal currently in force? No. Is Obama's ad hoc coalition likely to last nearly as long as Roosevelt's? Certainly not. And when the inevitable reaction comes, what parties will be the key players in it?

Ugh, I meant on the left. Ignore the first half.

Anyway, Obama's coalition isn't really that different from what's been the Democratic 'Base' since the '60s. He might have gotten some 'moderates' on board but the core - urban liberals, the unions, blacks & hispanics - is basically the same (plus the gay vote obviously although less so than Kerry). Now I do think the Democratic Party has serious potential for upheaval given what I believe will happen the next 4 years but I see no indications that 'libertarianism' will have a serious chance of taking root. You can point to the DFC but really they have far less people associating with them than the RLC/Paulites/Tea Partiers/etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For the most part my differences with 'libertarians' on those matters are trivial. Surveillance, drugs, guns, censorship, sexuality, etc... All of those I want significantly less government intervention in. There might be some differences on a few things that I have but those boil down to practical concerns more than 'moral fiber' or anything like that.

[War on Want]

Johnson but even he would be a terrible candidate against Obama.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Great I get to choose between 4 looney tunes.  All of these canidates posture themselves with people who hates jews and blacks.  I mean the Michigan Coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign was an organizer for the Ku Klux Klan.  He is also supported by a number of Neo-Nazi and racist websites and happily takes money from many Ku Ku Klux Klan members without returning it back.  Most notably he took money from Grand Wizard and proprietor of stormfront, Don Black ($500, which he didn't need).  l of them beleive that the Civil War, WW1, and WW2 should have never been fought.  They all think we should have absolutely no rules and regulations over businesses.  That means providing businesses witht he opppurtunity to pollute and decrease the health standards for their employees.  They secretly beleive that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by George Bush and the Jews, or Israel.  We can make that assumption based on the idiots that go to libertarian meetings and rallys.  Ron Paul and his son suggested that we eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office.  I've also heard Napolitano, Schiff and Johson support that statement.

These people are not worthy canidates.   There actually dangerous canidates.   Anyone who
pports them are dangerous kooks.

Maybe you'll change your mind when (if?) you graduate kindergarten...

[Mechaman]

It can be. You have to remember the backlash to the DHS report awhile ago that specified that veterans, anti abortion protesters, etc. were potential 'threats' just a few months ago. Or how about the '90s? Remember the sympathies a lot of the right (ESPECIALLY a lot of fundamentalists) showed towards the branch davidians, militia movement, etc. and hostility towards Clinton's anti terrorism proposals? And that was just in the recent past, you can look towards the Goldwaterites, segregationists, and anti-New Deal types for other examples of the anti-(federal) government right. Obviously I don't condone all or even most of those views, I'm just pointing out obvious historical realities.

Which I absolutely reject. Merely because the Branch Dividians were opposed to the Federal government doesn't mean I'm their ally; if they controlled the central government, I'd be dead, as both an atheist and an "abortionist" (an ex of mine had one). I'm not about to hop on every hot cock that proclaims itself opposed to the current government simply because you're all lubed up. Our reasons for opposing the government are not at all related.

And why would I want to ally with segregationists? Segregationism is enforced by a (decentralized, local) State; and nanny-statism is nanny-statism, wherever it is practiced.

Incidentally: where were you during the Bush years?

     Indeed. The left is outraged by the abuses of the right. The right is outraged by the abuses of the left. Only libertarians are outraged by the abuses of both. I shall remain unimpressed with both wings until the day one of them wholeheartedly supports a libertarian for President. I think we can tell that day will be long in coming given a lot of Republican reactions to a prospective Gary Johnson candidacy.

Indeed. I can't describe in words my disgust with the Republican Party.

[Beet]

Any currency issued by any human entity is only going to be as trustworthy as that entity. If you only trust gold, then only transact in gold. Don't own any currency at all. Don't own any notes of any kind. Own only gold.

Even assuming people had the resources (or motivation) to do so, what do you think would happen if significant percentage of the population reverted to hard currency? The government would declare an emergency almost immediately and confiscate it.

Who cares what a "significant percentage of the population" does? Libertas says he trusts gold more than the dollar in his pocket, with a strong implication that he doesn't trust the dollar in his pocket very much. To which my question is, why does he carry that dollar if he doesn't trust it?

Of course it was a bit of a rhetorical question. On a mass, scale actually transacting in gold, or even gold and commodities, is impractical; one can't lug a pound of coal or a liter of natural gas to pay for one's groceries every week. One needs paper and plastic. But all paper and plastic is issued by some human entity. And no human entity is infalliable... in fact, they are all subject to pretty much the same fallibilities: human fallibilities.

[YankeeFan007]

Great I get to choose between 4 looney tunes.  All of these canidates posture themselves with people who hates jews and blacks.  I mean the Michigan Coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign was an organizer for the Ku Klux Klan.  He is also supported by a number of Neo-Nazi and racist websites and happily takes money from many Ku Ku Klux Klan members without returning it back.  Most notably he took money from Grand Wizard and proprietor of stormfront, Don Black ($500, which he didn't need).  l of them beleive that the Civil War, WW1, and WW2 should have never been fought.  They all think we should have absolutely no rules and regulations over businesses.  That means providing businesses witht he opppurtunity to pollute and decrease the health standards for their employees.  They secretly beleive that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by George Bush and the Jews, or Israel.  We can make that assumption based on the idiots that go to libertarian meetings and rallys.  Ron Paul and his son suggested that we eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office.  I've also heard Napolitano, Schiff and Johson support that statement.

These people are not worthy canidates.   There actually dangerous canidates.   Anyone who
pports them are dangerous kooks.

Maybe you'll change your mind when (if?) you graduate kindergarten...

I'm sorry but I'm not going to support your dellusional, New Nazi canidates.  I don't like canidates who pal around with 9/11 truthers.  I especially don't like this absolute movement to End the Fed, which would give total power back to congressman who lack economic knowledge.  And I don't want to get rid of the FBI, CIA, and NSA.  I don't beleive in unquestionable and absolute gun rights for everyone.  I beleive in the Civil Rights Act.  I beleive that there should be laws against hard drugs like ecstacy, cocaine and heroine.   I beleive in the federal income tax, despite how high some people think it should be. 

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'm sorry but I'm not going to support your dellusional, New Nazi canidates.  I don't like canidates who pal around with 9/11 truthers.  I especially don't like this absolute movement to End the Fed, which would give total power back to congressman who lack economic knowledge.  And I don't want to get rid of the FBI, CIA, and NSA.  I don't beleive in unquestionable and absolute gun rights for everyone.  I beleive in the Civil Rights Act.  I beleive that there should be laws against hard drugs like ecstacy, cocaine and heroine.   I beleive in the federal income tax, despite how high some people think it should be. 

Well I don't like liars, fanatics who love to control other peoples' lives, or idiots who lack basic spelling and grammar skills, but look, I'm learning to co-exist with you.

[Mint]

Ugh, sorry for the delay.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's what I was getting at yes.

Now admittedly, OPEC has stated it wants to get off the dollar by 2018 and the UN has only just begun discussing limiting the dollar in 'emerging markets.' But really, why is it so unreasonable to anticipate a crisis in a much shorter time frame? Just a couple of years ago it would have been a conspiracy theory to suggest that foreign nations would be seriously discussing a new global reserve by the end of the decade. Yet what happened this year? China, India, Brazil and Russia all proposed exactly that openly. Factor in the enormous potential costs of our bail outs (potentially upwards of $23 trillion going by Barofsky's estimate) and the staggering deficits we're already running and I see no reason not to believe we will not see serious inflationary pressures on the dollar within a year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Argentina is sort of an awkward example because they weren't really an orthodox currency board. They might have set a fixed exchange rate with the dollar but they didn't really set up a separate body from their central bank and they essentially counted their bonds as reserves (after a point). They didn't even have requirements that foreign reserves had to be held in any currency.

I agree that you have a point in terms of government arbitrariness and culture though, although transparency might expose the fundamental flaws within our economy that would otherwise be (literally) papered over.. Perversely enough this is essentially the Fed's argument against revealing their loans to Bloomberg, that if we were to know the details it would undermine recovery.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, his rationale was more the French's influence than anything else (IIRC) which was somewhat understandable.. Obviously it was in need of overhaul. But what has happened to the dollar the last generation or so? Even putting aside the devaluation that occurred in the '70s it's been in what's essentially a two decade long bear market when compared to other currencies. Looking at the early to mid 20th century this doesn't look like a normal pattern.