I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2013, 11:01 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 05:30 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ...
ask how Switzerland did it.
...

Nazi gold?

Shocking

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
17-11-2013, 12:43 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 11:01 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 05:30 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ...
ask how Switzerland did it.
...

Nazi gold?

Shocking

Your response, and all the likes, proves my point. When you're faced with irrefutable evidence, you'll find ANY excuse, no matter how insignificant, to bury your head in the sand and ignore all the facts. Obviously you can find ANY trivia and latch onto that as an excuse, but put this in perspective....

When the State Department released their report it says that Switzerland had bought from the Nazi's $425 million worth of gold ($4b in today's dollars), which the Nazi's stole from Holocaust victims. So the Nazi's were the ones who saw the most benefit because they paid nothing and got stolen gold. Switzerland's benefit was temporary in that they likely bought the gold at below-market value, kept in their vaults, but then later ended up giving it back--without getting reimbursed what they paid the Nazi's for it.

However, even _IF_ Switzerland got all $4b in gold and didn't pay anything for it, and it was just a "gift".... Put it into perspective. That only amounts to $571/Swiss citizen, in today's dollars. The average Swiss household has $700,000 in savings. In other words, it's so trivial compared to the big picture as to be immaterial. Yet, when I say "how did they do achieve this impressive feat", rather than looking at the policies which made it possible and brought them to #1, you focus on $571/person worth of gold, that the Swiss actually paid for, and ended up returning without getting their money back, and you use that as your excuse to dismiss what they accomplished.

I ask you to name one time that a libertarian, like Milton Friedman, would EVER be so desperate to hide from the facts and play such a silly game. Seriously, can you link to one time when I, or any other libertarians, did something like that?

Further, remember that Switzerland is a land-locked country with no natural resources. The US, by comparison, has two coastlines, tons of oil, gas, and all sorts of natural resources. So, even _IF_ we again say Switzerland just got that $4b in gold, still the "gift" that the US gets from our natural resources is orders of magnitude greater than any "gift" Switzerland ever got, yet in the past 40 years, the average Swiss household went from being poorer than the American household, to being 7x richer. But you'll dismiss all that, ignore the accomplishment, and insist there's nothing to learn here, and use $571 worth of gold they allegedly got 70 years ago as your excuse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
17-11-2013, 12:55 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 10:38 PM)BryanS Wrote:  I think it would also be helpful to explain more about what you mean by scalable then. When I think of something being called scalable, I think of it functioning similarly when you have more quantity. Using the environment example again, one company (if you call the company the autonomous unit) may not do any damage by polluting, but many companies independently making the same decision may.

I really mean it in the simple, obvious sense. Whenever I talk about how much the Hong Kong government provided it's people for only 12% of gdp, liberals counter "but Hong Kong is so small, it can't work in a place like the USA because is so much bigger, and so there's so many more layers of bureaucracy added." And I say "yes, you're right, and that's my point. If we followed the Constitution and left all the bureaucracy to the state level, each US state has roughly the population of Hong Kong, so they'd be able to run on a comparable level of efficiency. But once you move all the power to Washington to make decisions for all 50 states, it becomes unwieldy".

You keep bringing up environmental issues. But I don't see how this justifies the inefficiency of a monolithic central government. Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, etc., they're all small governments. Does that mean they don't need to worry about polluting their neighbors? Does that mean Switzerland can dump toxic chemicals in the rivers that flow into Germany, just because Switzerland and Germany have separate governments? Of course not. Whether, let's say, US social security was administered at the State level, or at the national level, has no effect whatsoever on whether California can pollute Nevada's water. So arguing because of water pollution between states we need to have Social Security administered at the national level is just plain silly. The US still has to deal with pollution between Canada and Mexico. Are you saying the only possible way to do it is to combine all 3 countries into 1 giant country? And if so, this CanAmerMex conglomerate could still pollute other countries, so, you're really arguing that because of pollution, we need 1 giant world government, and need every aspect of government, from driver's licenses to building code, administered by one inefficient, monolithic world body. I'm just saying "No, deal with environment issues separately, and have lean, small, efficient local governments that the people can manage more closely."

(16-11-2013 10:38 PM)BryanS Wrote:  And this is not limited to the environment? Many parties individually decided to lend in the subprime mortgage market and created systemic risk to the whole economy.

Yes, and WHY is that? It's because everything was centralized with one giant national institution, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, that set nationwide rules for lending. _IF_ there was no centralized control, all 50 states would have had their own systems, and worst case, a state would have brought itself down, but you couldn't have had the whole country fall. To me this is just one example proving why concentrating and centralizing power is so dangerous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 01:22 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(17-11-2013 12:43 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 11:01 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Nazi gold?

Shocking

Your response, and all the likes, proves my point. When you're faced with irrefutable evidence, you'll find ANY excuse, no matter how insignificant, to bury your head in the sand and ignore all the facts make a wise crack to lighten the mood.
...

fixt Thumbsup

btw, (based on the 'you' generalisation above) I'm getting the impression that you are feeling a little persecuted for your position.

Whereas, in fact, I haven't expressed any opinion on your stance or, indeed, revealed my stance.

So just ignore me. This is good discussion thread and I'm enjoying learning about new stuff.

Cheers.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
17-11-2013, 06:37 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
Well DLJ, we need some humour in a serious thread too, or else I'm gonna get distracted by... Ooh, look, a bird!

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes NL Atheist's post
17-11-2013, 07:11 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Again, I agree. But you understand this puts you in the 'propertarian libertarian' camp with me, not the side that Noam Chomsky is on.

I'm not sure if I would call myself a propertarian, as I am not a free market enthusiast in any way. I just believe that if people made something themselves, thereby contributing to society, they should be rewarded in some way or another.

I am not too familiar with propertarianism, does it mean free market capitalism? I'd like to know, because I am still in favour of collectivising means of production and worker self-management.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 09:55 AM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2013 10:01 AM by frankksj.)
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(17-11-2013 07:11 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Again, I agree. But you understand this puts you in the 'propertarian libertarian' camp with me, not the side that Noam Chomsky is on.

I'm not sure if I would call myself a propertarian, as I am not a free market enthusiast in any way. I just believe that if people made something themselves, thereby contributing to society, they should be rewarded in some way or another.

I am not too familiar with propertarianism, does it mean free market capitalism? I'd like to know, because I am still in favour of collectivising means of production and worker self-management.

It's actually really simple. It just means "can a human being own property (matter)", or since all matter on earth existed before humans, should we say that all matter belongs to earth collectively. Wikipedia:propertarianism

Even those who hate libertarians understand the core issue. From an anti-libertarian blog (which actually is mostly factually accurate) "There is, of course, a major difference between the two branches of Libertarianism: one is non-propertarian (i.e., they don’t believe in private property), the other is propertarian (for them private property is a fundamental human right). Interestingly, Noam Chomsky has pointed out that everywhere in the world except in the United States, being a libertarian means falling into the non-propertarian group, so that most libertarians in the US are actually not libertarian by the historical standards of the rest of the world... Propertarians see life, liberty and property as the fundamental rights of human beings. Non-propertarians agree on life, but think that real liberty comes only when one has free access to natural resources..."

I actually think Noam Chomsky's statement is misleading because propertarian libertarianism actually originated in Europe (John Locke, Frédéric Bastiat, etc.), and all Western European constitutions created during Age of Enlightenment enshrine propertarian libertarianism. Non-propertarian libertarianism (communism) was embraced in Eastern Europe and Asia. I believe that what Chomsky simply meant is that the word 'libertarian' as it's used today (not the concept) in the US is exclusively propertarian, whereas in Europe and Asia the two branches are recognized.

Where that anti-libertarian blog is wrong is that he says "the major [problem with libertarianism] being that it is hard to say what exactly a libertarian is." You only need a dictionary to sort that one out: one who believes in liberty, letting everyone exercise free will, without threats of force and coercion to make them do things against their will. He doesn't want to admit this plain, obvious fact (like so many liberals on this forum) because he can't confess that the only thing he disagrees with libertarians on is that he wants to force people into doing things against their will. So he pretends not to understand what libertarianism is. Which is a joke because he obviously studied libertarianism since his blog is filled will accurate facts on the subject. So, while his blog points out the different way libertarians want to reach that goal of liberty, it's a glaring omission to not point out that this IS the common goal. Laughably he suggested that libertarians (ie Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys), because they taught Chile how to have a thriving prosperous free-market economy, are to blame for Chile's horrific plight under the dictator Pinochet. That's ludicrous. Pinochet was put in power BEFORE Friedman got involved by mainstream American politicians who supported his reign of terror, and Friedman always said economic freedom and social freedom were linked so that by teaching the Chilean dictator how to have a thriving and prosperous economy, it would ultimately break the dictatorship and lead to a free, democratic society. Which is exactly what happened. So blaming Friedman for Pinochet is absurd; Friedman SAVED Chile from Pinochet, and was crucial in overthrowing an evil, oppressive regime that was supposed by Democrats and Republicans. Ask Chileans on the street if Friedman was an oppressor who supported the dictator or a hero who liberated them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 10:01 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
@Frank.

Quick Guide To Understanding DLJ.
By Muffs.

Step 1) Identify his post.

Step 2) Assume 1 or more of the following:
- wit
- charm
- sarcasm
- an obscure reference to having sex with 21 year old Asian girls
- humor

Never assume any of the following:
- seriousness

Step 3) ???

Step 4) Profit.


The more you know, brought to you by Muffin mix, why make it yourself when you can buy it ready made in a tube?

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
17-11-2013, 10:28 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
Excellent. And accurate.

Art should never be corrected so I feel loathed to make the corrections below:

(17-11-2013 10:01 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  @Frank.

Quick Guide To Understanding DLJ.
By Muffs.

Step 1) Identify his post.

Step 2) Assume 1 or more of the following:
- wit
- charm
- sarcasm
- an obscure reference to having sex with 21 year old Asian girls
- humour

Never assume any of the following:
- seriousness

Step 3) ???

Step 4) Profit.


The more you know, brought to you by Muffin mix, why make it yourself when you can buy it ready made in a tube?

Also, noticing your new sig and given that you owe me 50 bucks, I claim (a smidge under) 3 x pre-paid advertising opportunities.

btw, Frank,
I wonder whether Chomsky was making the wider point that libertarian (of any bent) is a term rarely used outside of the US.
Or maybe that's just my opinion in that I've only ever heard Murikans use the word.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 11:28 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(17-11-2013 10:01 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  - an obscure reference to having sex with 21 year old Asian girls

They are anything but obscure. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: