Worthwhile Possible GOP nominees

[Mint]

I think Schiff is probably the most viable IMO given his media exposure and reputation now. But obviously I like all of them.

All of these candidates appeal to anyone who is not a parasite, control-freak, or idiot.

Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population fits into one or more of those groups.

I wouldn't be that pessimistic. I think if you look at the polls (see Gallup: taxes, unions, marijuana, etc.) and recent events there's a lot of signs people are ready to break out of the old paradigm or are at least more skeptical. Case in point, nobody would have taken a bill to audit the fed seriously a few years back. Now? Not so much.

[Mint]

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.

Paul also stated he didn't believe in evolution and would oppose gay marriage at the state level.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

[Mint]

Right, Peter Schiff is a christian conservative. That's why he favors allowing abortion, gay marriage and drug use. Please keep sharing your profound wisdom about who I do or don't support.

[Mint]

You said 'Maybe that's why you should reject candidates until they reject Christian conservatism.' Seeing that I am not pushing Paul in particular your point is irrelevant and wrong in its implication (re: that I only support people sympathetic to Christian Conservatism).

[Mint]

Of course I support Paul, everyone on that list I would gladly vote for. Now do I think he's the most viable? No, as I said before Schiff is the strongest out of the bunch. Paul's age alone is a huge hinderance even assuming the unbelievably horrible conditions I'm anticipating in this country between now and 2012.

[Mint]

Of course I support Paul

So you support Christian Conservatism, as long as it supports your economic interests. Thanks for clarifying what I already knew.

Paul has some christian conservative social views, yes, but that does not make him one and the same with people like Robertson, Huckabee, etc. If some conservative protestants are willing to oppose the war on drugs, war on terror, etc. then I'm willing to ally with them. The same goes with Liberals to an extent, though obviously few liberals are going to be on board with any significant reduction of the federal government.

[Mint]

Of course I support Paul

So you support Christian Conservatism, as long as it supports your economic interests. Thanks for clarifying what I already knew.

Paul has some christian conservative social views, yes, but that does not make him one and the same with people like Robertson, Huckabee, etc. If conservative protestants are willing to oppose the war on drugs, war on terror, etc. then I'm willing to ally with them. The same goes with Liberals to an extent, though obviously few liberals are going to be on board with any significant reduction of the federal government.

Don't lie to me, scumbag. I know that you're not concerned whatsoever with the social - or individual - ramifications of libertarianism; you only want to be relieved of your tax burden. You are, as always, a worthless whore to whoever mouths your interests the loudest.

Right, 'my interests'. What might those be, Professor?

[Mint]

'Alliances of convenience.' This coming from someone who refers to the Democratic Party as 'we'? Newsflash: any viable movement has allies that might disagree with them on some points. Case in point - I don't particularly care for a lot of the anarchists and hippies at the anti-G20/WTO/etc. protests but I still support the overall idea. It's exactly this sort of idiotic purism and infighting that's allowed both parties' establishments to maintain the stranglehold they have now virtually unchallenged.

[Mint]

I've said repeatedly I have nothing against trying to get the hippies and disillusioned liberals on board. The problem is they won't generally, for fairly obvious reasons. Even the ones who do view the power structure as the problem rather than just the people running it typically don't support restricting it - pretty much the opposite.

[Mint]

I've said repeatedly I have nothing against trying to get the hippies and disillusioned liberals on board. The problem is they won't generally, for fairly obvious reasons. Even the ones who do view the power structure as the problem rather than just the people running it generally don't support restricting it - pretty much the opposite.

And you honestly think it's different with the social conservatives? Really?

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Out of this list? Extremely doubtful, otherwise these candidates wouldn't take so many extremely unpopular views. If it's the hacks like Palin, Huckabee, Romney, etc. then of course we'll continue our long national nightmare.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't advocate for either party's outlook. The Republican establishment is intellectually and morally bankrupt and I will never make the mistake for settling for the 'lesser of two evils' again. In fact I think if McCain won we might be conceivably worse off than now because people would probably draw the wrong conclusions from his (likely earlier) and inevitable failure.

[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.

[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.

[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.'

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.