But I agree with the sentiment. The US is really going down the tubes. Instead of stretching the system beyond its breaking point to maintain the current status quo, conservatives just need to give the fuck up and move with the times.
Don’t take this for a second to mean that I hold conservatives solely responsible for the state the country’s in. I’m speaking almost exclusively on the topics of gay rights, abortion rights, and progressive research technologies like stem cell research and alternative energy, as they’re the issues in the current US political theatre that I actually give a fuck about. Conservatives are really holding all of these back while the rest of the world surges ahead.
What you’ve just said is one of the first things Ron Paul wrote in his book:
Unless you want to contradict what you’ve just said, you’d have to vote for Ron Paul. Why? Because all other candidates want to maintain the status quo.
The whole election system is messed up in my point of view. 1. Candidates basically have no choice but sucking the dick of every major corporation, because otherwise they can not campaign successfully (see Ron Paul) (tax-funded system not present in the U.S.?). 2. Plurality-voting system.
Yes, I appear to have done. I’m reading up on the guy and he’s actually fairly respectable. I don’t like his pro-life stance, though. In my mind the issue of abortion is one that no politician has any business sticking their nose in.
He wants to abolish the central bank, the IRS, 5+ departments, cut government spending in the trillions. Go back to sound money (gold standard), get rid of the income tax. Significantly lower the regulatory burden for (small) businesses, get rid of totalitarian junk like the Patriot Act. He wants to bring back all foreign troops, go back to a non-interventionist foreign policy (peace and trade but no alliances, no foreign aid).
He wants to end the corporatism, the totalitarianism, bring back free market capitalism and trash the pseudo-scientific garbage called keynesianism.
When a man says those things, I’d say his views on abortion are the least of my concern. But I guess that’s just my personal opinion.
What is the difference between free-market capitalism and anarchocapitalism? Also, Keynesianism has evidence that it is the only thing that works in practice so trashing Keynesianism is exactly what leads to destructive results.
Also, Ron Paul is against things that lead to a civilized society such as the Civil Rights Act.
I will not be voting for Paul. Some of his policies are okay, but too many are incredibly ruinous.
In a free market there is still a state to protect the rights of individuals and to provide national defence. Taxes are still present, but extremely low.
Anarcho-capitalism means that everything is provided by the free market through voluntary exchange, there is no state.
He has clearly stated that most countries in the world got rid of racism / discrimination without the need for government intervention.
Economies have done just fine for over a thousand years, until the power of issuing currency and the setting of interest rates became a monopoly (central bank).
Keynesianism has lead to most of our current problems, think of the debt, deficit spending, inflation in the monetary supply and the housing bubble. The ‘08 crash was caused because of the artificially low interest rates from the Federal Reserve. Keynes’ original theories have been abused to fund the growth of government by transfering the wealth of the people to the state through inflation.
Many of the current economic problems have been foreseen by Austrian economists for over a decade.
Keynesian policies have failed over and over again, all we get is more artificial booms, more bail outs, more inflation, more unemployment, more devaluation of the currency. The stimulus didn’t work either.
I take it you’ve learned about keynesianism in college, probably Paul Krugman textbooks? Try Henry Hazzlit, Hayek, Mises, Carl Menger etc.
But what if those taxes are not enough to pay for these things?
But, isn’t that what right-wing libertarians like Paul want?
And he’s wrong.
Wrong.
Ah, got it. An abused system should be tossed out. Guns can be and are abused. Time to ban 'em.
Right. Because they are the cause.
False. It is Friedmanism that has failed over and over again which as led to “more artificial booms, more bail outs, more inflation, more unemployment, more devaluation of the currency.”
BWAHAHAHAHA! Absurdly false.
Nah. I learned it from researching history and every time Keynesian policies have been implemented, the economy flourished. Every time polices of people like Friedman have been implemented, we’ve gone into recessions and bread lines.
This is history you’re arguing against.
Paul’s policies would lead us right back into the ditch. Don’t vote for Paul if you want a burgeoning economy.
I’m not sure what you mean, like I said the government would only be there to protect the rights of citizens and to provide national defence. If that’s the only thing government has to do then taxes would naturally be extremely low compared to what government has to do today (think of social services for example)
No, remember that anarcho-capitalism is the most extreme form of libertarianism. Just because one is a right-wing libertarian does not mean he/she supports anarcho-capitalism. Almost all libertarians and Ron Paul supporters want a state (to protect rights, to have a police force, military, courts etc.), they just want to make sure that the state does not interfere with social and economic freedom too much.
I suppose I’ve used the wrong word, what I meant by it is that keynesianism by itself exists to fuel the growth of government by transfering wealth from the people through inflation.
What flourished was the increased productivity and efficiency on the markets. False prosperity is created when the Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air, keynesians were all happy and cheerful about the housing markets just moments before we witnessed the burst of the largest bubble in human history. That’s because keynesians, like all bad economists, only look at the direct results of an economic policy. They forget about the indirect and long-term consequences (“That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen”).
Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how bad the current economic situation in the US / EU is? We are in the deepest ditch ever seen in history! You sure as shit can’t blame that on capitalism or free markets, because we’ve had neither for nearly 100 years.
And no, the stimulus did not work, unemployment is higher. But it’s no surprise really, how could borrowing money possibly create jobs when all the money goes into consumer spending of products made in foreign countries like China. All that the stimulus did in the end was create more of the same: DEBT.
And, since no one is suggesting that the state should interfere with social and economic freedom too much, Paul’s complaints are irrelevant.
And you’d be wrong.
And you’re wrong again. You are flat out lying about Keynesianism.
Yes, I do. And Keynesianism is digging us out of it.
Even deeper than the Great Depression? Interesting!
I blame it on Friedmanism which is the antithesis of capitalism.
It would be even higher without the stimulus.
All the money? Also, you’re trying to claim that people buying things does not help the economy. That is a really strange claim.
No. The debt is not caused by the stimulus. In fact, the stimulus made the debt smaller than it would’ve been had the stimulus not happened.
You are just flat wrong but you are quite unwilling to even research this subject because you have your head so far up Mises’ ass that I can’t even discuss this with you.
I would love for either or both of you to pull down journal articles and economic analyses supporting your claims. Not because I think you’re both full of crap, but because it’s come to my attention that I’m woefully ignorant in the political and economic arenas, and I’m genuinely interested in figuring out which of the two of you is more correct.
Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.
