The Paul File

[Michael]

Do we agree that government is a group of people just like any other group of people (with the exception that the government can legally initiate violence)? We know government is very inefficient and will never care, cloth, feed and look after us in a cost effective manner.

Thus, the solution is not to increase "spending" on drug treatment programs, but instead we will have to organize ourselves and our communities to offer treatments to drug dependent people. Of course, this takes a certain amount of responsibility on the part of the individual and his or her role in the sort of community he or she would like to be a part of.

It's my opinion that at the end of the day, people need to be responsible for their own choices and parents need to teach their children not to do drugs. All this "War on Drugs" have done is made drugs very expensive and kind of cool for the more impressionable people in society and sent a generation of black entrepreneurs to prison.

All of that said, I do think we will have to spend time and money as a society treating some drug addicts.

 

[quadraphonics]

we will have to organize ourselves and our communities to offer treatments to drug dependent people. Of course, this takes a certain amount of responsibility on the part of the individual and his or her role in the sort of community he or she would like to be a part of.

What, exactly, is the difference between that and a "government?"

 

[Michael]

What, exactly, is the difference between that and a "government?"

Initiation of force. That's the only thing that makes government different. All other organizations are voluntary.

In this case I suppose it'd be a combination of redistribution of wealth via income tax and inflation via money printing that would pay for the drug rehabilitation. Which is why income tax is not voluntary and USD is the only currency. Oh, and even better, the USD is controlled by a few oligarch-technocrats who make decisions based on how they can squeeze more wealth into their pockets.

As for drug abusers this seems to be the main argument: People suck and so we must tax them, you know, to help them be better people. Because if not they'd leave drug abusers to die on the street :bugeye:

 

[iceaura]

People suck and so we must tax them, you know, to help them be better people. Because if not they'd leave drug abusers to die on the street

That's not a guess. That's the observed history of industrial civilization. If you don't tax rich people and use the money to maintain the community, the community will be a miserable mire of poverty and disease.

Depending on the charity of upper classes for the decency and good order of the lower class's community is a fool's gambit.

If you don't put the initiation of force in the hands of a government beholden to the regular citizenry and employed in their interests, it will remain in the hands of the wealthy, employed in theirs.

The young men who stormed the Bastille in the French Revolution, many of them soldiers and jobholders and in general the better off of the French community, averaged 5'4" tall and weighed around 110 pounds.

 

[Michael]

That's not a guess. That's the observed history of industrial civilization. If you don't tax rich people and use the money to maintain the community, the community will be a miserable mire of poverty and disease.

I don't think this is historically accurate and I think it's making a logical error: Zero sum gain.

Firstly, how does taxing wealthy productive people make society more prosperous? Think about it. You're taking wealth from one person, who the market (that's us in a capitalistic society) has decided it greatly supports and giving it to a middleman (that's government) who is poor at providing the needs of the market and inefficiently giving it to someone else.

It may make society more equitable, but overall society will be less prosperous.

That may not seem like much until you realize that the poorest stratum of America live like kings compared with a truly socialized society like North Korea or an extremely unproductive one like Afghanistan. Americans are more likely to die of obesity, which may seem vulgar to a starving North Korean, but is what it is.

Secondly, wealth is not a zero sum gain. IOWs, wealthy people (lets use Steve Jobs as an example) do not get wealthy by stealing your wealth. They create wealth for themselves ONLY by providing YOU with something pleasing. Isn't that interesting? In a capitalistic society a person can only get wealthy by serving the public. You get a super cheap super computer in your pocket, Steve Jobs gets the thrill of giving you that item. Most wealthy people are not motivated by money, but by the thrill of creating.

Thirdly, I do agree there's a problem in America. It's crony capitalism. This is where the politician passes legislation making it difficult for iPhones to be sold and then shakes down Steve Jobs saying: We're going to need some cash to keep the legislation off the books for another year, Americans are sick of seeing Chinese slaves make their iPhones - pony up buddy. The truth of the matter is Chinese are not forces to make phones and Americans are not forced to buy them. Yes, under pressure from home Chinese will work like slaves, but, they do not have to. They can quit, there's plenty more to step in their place. Americans also do not have to buy those phones. They want them at $800 a phone.

Or they outright pass legislation paid for by a monopolist.

Either way, the only solution is going to be to shrink government.


So, we have to stop and think about what we're really saying. The truth of the matter is Chinese is become extremely wealthy and more Chinese have been pulled out of dire poverty than in the history of humanity. Americans have a bunch of cheap electronics and are (for now) able to maintain the illusion they get to eat lunch for free.


This brings me to point #4: The US dollar. This is the root of the problem.

Depending on the charity of upper classes for the decency and good order of the lower class's community is a fool's gambit.

You're already boxing your thoughts in to thinking you need the upper classes' currency. In a free society you shouldn't. Also, the more look into things, you'll find the ONLY reason most of the "upper class" got that way and stays that way is because the government is taxing YOU and giving it to them. I've read the bailout in 08 saved the arses of numerous long standing banking families. IOWs, you're being milked for the benefit of the Upper Class. Not for your benefit.

They're selling you.

Think of it like this, when the US sells bonds (good word that one) to the Chinese, what is it they're selling them?

If you don't put the initiation of force in the hands of a government beholden to the regular citizenry and employed in their interests, it will remain in the hands of the wealthy, employed in theirs.

Wealthy people are beholden to the Law just like any other citizen.

The young men who stormed the Bastille in the French Revolution, many of them soldiers and jobholders and in general the better off of the French community, averaged 5'4" tall and weighed around 110 pounds.

They did that because they lived under the thumb of a government - just like has happened to us.

Liberty is difficult to maintain, that's for sure.

 

[iceaura]

I don't think this is historically accurate and I think it's making a logical error: Zero sum gain.

It is historically accurate. I invite you to find a counterexample. I gave you the example of pre-Revolutionary France - you can look at England around the same time, or Spain, or Russia, or any other powers of the age of capital and industrial revolution.

It does not presume a zero sum - only that without societal and legal means of preventing the event, any increase in total wealth will be accumulated by the already wealthy. The sum can increase without bound, and benefit only the wealthy.

Firstly, how does taxing wealthy productive people make society more prosperous?

By preventing wealth from piling up in stagnant and inefficiently employed accumulations, for one. There are many others.

It may make society more equitable, but overall society will be less prosperous.

As a rule, and all else equal, more equitable societies have more prosperous lower and middle classes. Your theory should be modified in light of that fact, which can be observed by (for example) comparing Western societies now.

Wealthy people are beholden to the Law just like any other citizen.

Only if compelled. Around the turn of the century in the US, for example, when the wealthy were not taxed or otherwise compelled to obey laws - they were called "Robber Barons" - Cornelius Vanderbilt's son Reggie hit at least five different pedestrians with his car while driving around New York, killing at least two, without legal consequence.

The young men who stormed the Bastille in the French Revolution, many of them soldiers and jobholders and in general the better off of the French community, averaged 5'4" tall and weighed around 110 pounds.
”
They did that because they lived under the thumb of a government - just like has happened to us

They were not the size of thirteen year old girls because they had a government. The were that way because the wealthy in France were not taxed, or beholden to government, or prevented from keeping all the wealth for themselves. According to you, that should have made everyone prosperous. Instead, everyone starved.

 

[Billy T]

I think Ron Paul will have to increase spending on drug treatment programs if he intends to legalize drugs.

And I think, based on facts, you are wrong:

“… {In the Netherlands} Coffeeshops are tolerated with a view to protecting public health. The purpose here is to create a distinction between the markets for soft and hard drugs so that people who wish to use cannabis do not gradually slip into contact with hard drugs. The regulations governing coffeeshops are very rigorous. No alcohol or hard drugs may be sold or consumed there, and they are not allowed to advertise. Cannabis may only be sold to people who are aged 18 or over. ...

Source: D. van der Gouwe, E. Ehrlich, M.W. van Laar, "Drug policies in the Netherlands," Trimbos Institute, (March, 2009), p.9 .http://english.minvws.nl/includes/dl/openbestand.asp?File=/images/fo-dru...

-------------
"… There is no evidence that the depenalization component of the 1976 policy, per se, increased levels of cannabis use. On the other hand, the later growth in commercial access to cannabis, after de facto legalization, was accompanied by steep increases in use, even among youth. In interpreting that association, three points deserve emphasis. First, the association may not be causal; we have already seen that recent increases occurred in the United States and Oslo despite very different policies. Second, throughout most of the first two decades of the 1976 policy, Dutch use levels have remained at or below those in the United States. … Source: MacCoun, Robert and Reuter, Peter, "Interpreting Dutch Cannabis Policy: Reasoning by Analogy in the Legalization Debate," Science (New York, NY: American Association for the Advancement of Science, October 3, 1997), pp. 50-51.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44564392/Interpreting-Dutch-Cannabis-Policy-Re...

Comparing Important Drug and Violence Indicators:

Social Indicator ..................................................Comparison Year ....USA........Netherlands
Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) ..................2001... 36.9%......17.0%
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) ............2001.....5.4%........3.0%
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+)..........................2001...1.4%........0.4%
Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population ...........................2002.....701..........100
Per capita spending on criminal justice system .......................1998 .. .€379 .......€223
Homicide rate per 100,000 people Average 1999-2001 ......................5.56 ........1.51

Billt T comment:Note that by all measures, the problems drugs cause are less in the in Netherlands than in the US, at least less by half, but some factors are seven times lower in the Netherlands. More than three decades of small quantities of soft drugs legally available in controlled environments (“coffee shops”) has proven to be a great benefit for the Dutch.

Read more of the source above data / comments at: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67

SUMMARY: The Netherlands has nearly won the war against the serious ill effects of hard drugs that cost the US dearly in robberies, murders, urban destruction, and prison expenses. Two quick points: Lifetime addiction to heron is more than 3 times lower & to soft drug more than 2 times lower in the Netherland than in the US! No data given on the total cost but it is surely10 or more times less PER CAPITA, in the Netherlands.

BTW, when it comes to drugs, I am as "square" as it gets - never even one puff of marijuana, so nothing personal in my support of the proven better approach - I support socialized medicine and other policies that have proven to cut total cost in half and extend life expecatncies by 2 or 3 years.

One serious problem the US has (among other) is too inflated an ego - idea that the American way is best. Nothing to learn from others.

 

[Michael]

It is historically accurate. I invite you to find a counterexample. I gave you the example of pre-Revolutionary France - you can look at England around the same time, or Spain, or Russia, or any other powers of the age of capital and industrial revolution.

You can look through history and find a Dictator Roman Emperor and a prosperous period. You can find all sorts of examples.

Pre-Revolutionary France had a King and was not Capitalistic.
Spain had a King. Russia had a Tsar. England had King.

None of these are examples of anything different than our prosperous Roman Emperor.

They were not examples of free Capitalistic societies. The USA is the best example and we had a limited government and multiple currencies and were very prosperous.

It does not presume a zero sum - only that without societal and legal means of preventing the event, any increase in total wealth will be accumulated by the already wealthy. The sum can increase without bound, and benefit only the wealthy.

The wealthy must live under the same Laws as the non wealthy. ALL Citizens are equal under the Law. Unless you don't believe in the rule of Law?

I agree, upholding the Law is a role for government. The POTUS is there to ensure rule of Law.

By preventing wealth from piling up in stagnant and inefficiently employed accumulations, for one. There are many others.

This is backwards. Money saved is called Capital. That's the entire bases of our economy (or used to be, when money was real). When it's stored in a bank, the banker lends it out. When it's not stored in a bank it's invested or spent.

As a rule, and all else equal, more equitable societies have more prosperous lower and middle classes. Your theory should be modified in light of that fact, which can be observed by (for example) comparing Western societies now.

Actually, you seem to have a chicken and the egg approach here. Capitalism creates a prosperous society and that in turn makes life better for the "lower" class. This is the truth of history. Taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor makes society more equitable, but, less prosperous. When taken the extreme, we see extreme poverty.

Only if compelled. Around the turn of the century in the US, for example, when the wealthy were not taxed or otherwise compelled to obey laws - they were called "Robber Barons" - Cornelius Vanderbilt's son Reggie hit at least five different pedestrians with his car while driving around New York, killing at least two, without legal consequence.

I think BillyT posted a Sears catalog showing how life was actually pretty good for the "Little Guy" during the times of the "Robber Barons". See, in a free Capitalistic society "Robber Barons" can only get rich and stay rich IF they produce or invest in a service or product desired by everyone else (or lend to someone who will).

So, this is actually a bad example.

A good example would be the present state of affairs with the Federal Reserve, our corrupt government and the crony capitalists ruining our society. An educated moral society is actually necessary for the maintenance of a capitalistic prosperous society.

Now a days there's so much regulation and tax it's very different. Take the example of a vendor in Miami. You need to pay thousands to go into a lottery to maybe win a vendor license for one year to sell over priced hotdogs on the corner with little competition so as to pay for your license the next year. This makes it easy to game the system. In effect you're working for the State to pay tax to make life more "equitable" - what happens is life slowly becomes less prosperous.

It's a simple fact, as you reduce freedom society becomes less prosperous. If you use force immorally, you create a less free, immoral, less prosperous society - Welcome to the USA.

They were not the size of thirteen year old girls because they had a government. The were that way because the wealthy in France were not taxed, or beholden to government, or prevented from keeping all the wealth for themselves. According to you, that should have made everyone prosperous. Instead, everyone starved.

Your example of France was under a dictator. That's not free Capitalism. At best it's feudalism.



Lastly, it's immoral to initiate violence against someone who is providing a needed or desired service and steal their wealth. That's just a fact. It'd be much better to use competing currencies to undermine the wealth of people who are using theirs immorally in a morally defunct ignorant society who seems to be OK with their decrepit servitude.


IMO this is one of the main reasons why prosperous societies decline and eventually collapse.

 

[iceaura]

You can look through history and find a Dictator Roman Emperor and a prosperous period. You can find all sorts of examples.

So let's see one.

Pre-Revolutionary France had a King and was not Capitalistic.
Spain had a King. Russia had a Tsar. England had King.

None of these are examples of anything different than our prosperous Roman Emperor.

They were not examples of free Capitalistic societies.

The tendency of economic systems that produce great inequality of wealth to involve dictators and oppression argues my case, not yours.

The wealthy must live under the same Laws as the non wealthy.

As it turns out, that is not true in societies featuring great inequality of wealth. Yet another reason to avoid great inequality of wealth.

Capitalism creates a prosperous society and that in turn makes life better for the "lower" class. This is the truth of history.

But I have given you several examples of prosperous societies - even based on capital (France, England, etc) - that made life miserable for the lower classes - because too much of the prosperity accumulated in the hands of a small fraction of the society.

See, in a free Capitalistic society "Robber Barons" can only get rich and stay rich IF they produce or invest in a service or product desired by everyone else (or lend to someone who will).

Like food, for example. The big landowners and market controllers in Ireland had all this desirable food in 1849, and of course they sold it to people with money so they could become even more wealthy. And millions of Irish people, without enough land or money, starved.

Taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor makes society more equitable, but, less prosperous.

That is the "zero sum" fallacy. Usually, when more people have a good share of the wealth that aids productivity, more is produced. Beyond a certain size, big piles of money in one person's hands are less productive than the same money spread out to more opportunities.

Your example of France was under a dictator. That's not free Capitalism. At best it's feudalism.

There's nothing preventing capitalism from encouraging dictatorship - in fact, it has a natural tendency to consolidate wealth and power in a small number of people, who then rule the rest. You seem to have capitalism and freedom confused.

t's a simple fact, as you reduce freedom society becomes less prosperous.

So the question becomes how much income inequality maximizes freedom. Clearly too much produces oppression - the wealthy become the only free people. And too little reduces opportunity a lot. So what is the best level?

 

[Michael]

1. I agree that large landholders may distort the free market - espeacially if you're talking about owning most of the total land. Though, I've never seen this happen to a free capitalistic democratic society. It does happen in feudal societies.

2. I disagree that money "piles up in one person's hand". Firstly, are you talking about "money" or "currency"? In a free market money isn't going to "pile up" as someone will go into the market and offer a different currency for people to use as money. Secondly, people with lots of money must spend it, loan it, invest it or they can store it in a bank where it will be lent, invested or spent. When it's stored in a bank, that's actually called CAPITAL and together with private property rights is the bases of all American and Western prosperity. What doesn't happen to money is it "piling up".

3. I don't think capitalism can function outside of a free society. It's self-evident that if the society is capitalistic it must be by definition free. That's how free-markets work. Free choice. They ensure that limited resources are distributed equitably.

4. Lastly, you seem to live under the illusion that the government gives two shits about the poor or you. 99.9% of politicians only care about getting elected. You're so worried about the "rich getting one over on you" that you just let them bend you over. How many people have went to jail from the GFC? Maybe one? Bush-Obama have done everything in their power to ensure the mega-wealthy (that you worry so much about) didn't loose much and that the poor (that you care so much about) are going to be much poorer Much poorer.

Obama, with the help of helocrapter Ben, have done their absolute best to print and bailout the wealthiest 0.1% while keeping the lid on the 99.9% with quick fixes so that soon the Statue of Limitations runs out and NO ONE who committed a crime will be punished.

No one will be held to account.

Thanks to Bush and Obama the wealthiest are only getting more wealthy while the poor (and soon to be poor) are left destitute. That's a simple fact John. During Obama's State of the Union he crapped on about forming a committee (that's composed of <60 people) to "ensure the American consumer never have to bail out the too big to fail again".

The S&L crises involved 70x LESS money and there were thousands of FBI and thousands of bankers who went to prison. Here nearly NO ONE has even been investigated. There should be at least 50,000+ professionals digging through this mess and sending Bankers, politicians and those wealthy elite you're worried about, to prison.

That isn't going to happen.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but the politicians couldn't give two shits about you John. Go ahead and keep voting for Republicats. Mitt, Obama, whoever, you will see no change and the rich will continue to get richer while the poor continue to get robbed.

Only this time, you're going to loose more than your money - you're going to loose your freedoms too.

Welcome to Amerikkka John.
Where Debt means Money. Liberty means Slavery. And Consumer means Citizen.





NOTE: I can not stand to hear the POTUS refer to American Citizens as the "American Consumer". It's IMO sickening. Why not just say Cattle and get it over with...

 

[Michael]

double post

 

[Michael]

So the question becomes how much income inequality maximizes freedom. Clearly too much produces oppression - the wealthy become the only free people. And too little reduces opportunity a lot. So what is the best level?

I don't think this question makes much sense.

You can't pick a level of income "inequality" and aim for that to reach maximal freedom.

You START with a free society.
Which means you must have a free-market. If there's a market then there's capital. This capital forms the bases of capitalism within a free society. People cannot get "wealthy" and stay wealthy without meeting the market demands of the Citizens. If you don't, you loose your wealth. At least, that's what happens with free-markets in a capitalistic society.

Such a society will be prosperous.

So, the worry is, some people will become very rich and corrupt the system. Well, hello, why on earth would you give them the keys to the power of the State? You'd have to be an idiot to think giving the State MORE power over your life and liberty isn't going to be used by those very rich people to maintain their power and status.

Which is exactly what is happening right now.
Right this minute. Obama and his handlers are selling you and your family out. Just like Bush sold American solders out to the war profiteers.

Yes, society was unequal. BUT, it was just about to get MORE equal when the government stepped in a bailed out the rich, screwing the poor. The ONLY way you can prevent that from happening is by having limited government and an educated moral populous. The first step to being moral is admitting you have no right to someone else's income.

Which I find fascinating. Americans think income tax is someone 'leveling the playing field' when in actuality it's being used against them - such as the bailout of the rich families of Wall Street. But, then again, Americans gave away the right to manage their own God damn money. Hell, they can't even know what the Federal Reserve is doing to them. Did you know, thanks to the Paul audit, we now know out taxes were even used to bail out Libya!

Oh well, poor America, She had a decent run there for awhile - at least you can say to yourself "I meant right" as you help suck the last drips of Liberty from America's corpse as She dies.

 

[Billy T]

"... Peter Thiel's $2.6 million in total donations account for 76% of {Ron Paul´s} super PAC's fundraising since it came online late last year, underscoring the ability of deep-pocketed donors to have a major impact on campaign spending.

The donations are just a tiny fraction of the libertarian activist's net worth.{about 0.1% of his net worth, by BT´s calculations} In addition to his success at PayPal, which is now owned by eBay (EBAY, Fortune 500), ...
In 2004, Peter Thief put up $500,000 for Facebook's first financing round. At $30 per share, his stake in the social-networking powerhouse is now worth $1.3 billion. ..."

From: http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/20/news/economy/peter_thiel_ron_paul/index.htm?iid=GM

R P´s super PAC is relative small. Most suport Republicans, as you might have guessed. More from same link on Super PACs:

"... Super PACs are new this election cycle, and they have quickly become the donation method preferred by wealthy donors looking to make a splash.

More than half of itemized super PAC money this cycle has come from just 37 people, according to an analysis conducted prior to Monday's filings by PIRG and Demos, two research groups.

And gifts of $1 million or more -- from just 15 donors -- make up 38% of itemized, individual super PAC donations. ..."

Billy T comment: Yes, finnally now: American has the government the very rich want and can pay for. Is it any wonder the middle class is shrinking? Hell even Obama, who strongly condemend these big campaign donations, now has his own super PAC - If you can´t beat ´em, join ´em, I guess.

 

[elte]

Ron Paul's idea of greatly restricting currency mightn't be all that bad an idea in a future of resource scarcity where stopping economic growth could be a good thing. However, something I see as problematic is the viewpoint (that I pick up from him) that we will be religious and behave ourselves better. That would be counting on a hope that people will grow in their beliefs of the religious myths. It could more likely go the other way, until people get used to morality based on reason rather than on the mythical texts, they will behave worse. Cutthroat market activity with weakening morals reminds me more of Russia than a prosperous future here.

 

[Billy T]

More on Super PACs:

Ron Paul´s super PAC has 3.42 Million dollars. (2.6/0.76)

All the other Republican super PACs has or will have approximately 700 million dollars by white house estimates. Why Obama created his super PAC even though strongly opposed to the Supreme Court decision that recently made them legal - I.e. killed all limits on campaign contributions, if PAC was not directly controlled by the candiate.

Obama´s only super PAC, Priorities USA, had just 59 thousand dollars, 50 thousand of which was donated by John W. Rogers and given in January, according to the Federal Election Commission filings.

More at: http://news.yahoo.com/paltry-fundraising-obama-super-pac-prompted-strategy-053802267.html

Including following quotes:
"... Individual donations to campaigns are limited to $2,500 during the primary season and another $2,500 for the fall general campaign. Because of the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that banned limits on fundraising and spending by independent political groups, Super PACs have no such limit on donations.

Obama opposed that ruling, which erased longstanding limits on corporate and union money in federal elections. Obama "believes that this is an unhealthy development in our political process, but it is a reality of the rules as they stand," ...

Despite the PAC's financial weakness, the Obama campaign itself is still a fundraising juggernaut, raising $29.1 million in January along with the Democratic National Committee and other allies. It is expected to raise at least as much for the president's re-election as the $750 million it collected in the 2008 presidential race. {Billy T comment: As in the past, Obama will get a lot of small financial contributions, and Roger´s $50,000 appears to be the biggest, at present.}

{super PAC} Restore Our Future, the group supporting Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, had raised $36.8 million by the end of last month. ..."

 

[iceaura]

You can't pick a level of income "inequality" and aim for that to reach maximal freedom.

You'd better try, if freedom is your goal.

You START with a free society.

And you want to keep it that way. Breeding despots and oligarchs, hatching robber barons and criminal syndicates, installing plutocrats and monopoly owners of life's necessities, is a dubious strategy. Economic power corrupts as surely as any other - and more rapidly, by the available evidence.

So, the worry is, some people will become very rich and corrupt the system. Well, hello, why on earth would you give them the keys to the power of the State?

You don't have to give it to them. You have to prevent them from taking it. They will buy as much of it as they need to own, hire the rest, and steal what isn't for sale, unless you stop them. How do you propose to do that?

As a first step, I recommend a more accurate review of recent US history than this fanciful revision indicates:

The S&L crises involved 70x LESS money and there were thousands of FBI and thousands of bankers who went to prison.

Reagan's deregulations of the US banking industry were justified, and based on, your ideology here. And thousands of bankers did not go to prison.

There were more prosecutions and better investigations in those days, but under a Democratic Congress the Reagan Revolution had not yet gutted the Justice Department (W's completion of that part of the program still in the future), many of the chief malefactors were outside the modern Republican Party bubble of impunity (the Keating Five were mostly Democrats), and the deeds were both definitely crimes under then-established law and smaller in scale (not quasi-legal threats to the entire US economy).

You'd have to be an idiot to think giving the State MORE power over your life and liberty isn't going to be used by those very rich people to maintain their power and status.

So you prefer to cut out the middleman, and just bow to the power and status of the rich immediately?

As far as I can tell, any distinction between the State and the Rich has evaporated under your setup. Who, in your world of all power resting with accumulated capital, and none elsewhere, is the State?

Which brings up the likely effects of actually reforming the US government along Pauline ideology - never mind the obvious first truth that his liberations of bankers and multinational corporate powers from Federal oversight would be first up for enactment, followed grudgingly if ever by his liberations of individual human beings from State impositions.

He offers us no way to curb the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts, the Godfathers and Medellins, the Exxons and Enrons, the families and fortunes and corporate powers large enough to defy State governance.

 

[Michael]

iceaura,

You bring up some valid points. All I can say is history can seem to say one thing to one person and another to another :shrug: We both want to reach the same goals, however, we see different ways of getting there.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong. You of course think you are right.

Well, we'll see. Because more people tend to think like you do, then that's the way our nation is going (and has been going for the last 80 - 100 years). We'll call it the way of the Entitlementalists Most people think, what we need to do is tax the rich a little bit more and things will improve. But, that's not what's going to happen. The rich will continue to pay less and you will continue to pay more. More. And more. You will also loose more of your Liberties and more of your wealth. As is happening right now, at this very moment. One day, when society is much poorer than it is now, then you may want to reevaluate the way markets really work and what the ideal role of government should be. When that day comes. I'd encourage you to begin by reading Adam's Smith's book The Wealth of Nation and then think about the role of limited government. Then read the US Constitution. Maybe, it you have the spare time, contemplate the poor person you know (or see, or are) who has a mini-super computer / smart phone. Truly try to wonder how it is, this poor person, (who may be on welfare) can possess such a magnificent devise. Connection to the internet and all the world's knowledge instantaneous and in real time.


Note that Obama just bailed out the 5 top banks in the USA to the tune of $40 billion dollars. Shoveled that shit right onto the tax payer. Where we should have thousands (perhaps 10s of thousands) of bankers and their minions in prison, instead we have Obama paying them billions and billion and billions of dollars. Want to know where that money comes from? The rich? You may want to think again.


When the cuts start, such as the NASA Mars missions, think back to this conversation.


I find most things are just about the opposite as the way we were raised to think they were. By most things, I do mean most things. I'm not sure if it's by convention or accident? I think a little of both.

 

[iceaura]

Well, we'll see. Because more people tend to think like you do, then that's the way our nation is going (and has been going for the last 80 - 100 years).

That's false. Our nation has undertaken Reagan's economic program, and spent the last thirty years rolling back the New Deal. The national political media have all but eliminated leftwing and libertarian viewpoints, even when doing so damaged the accuracy or cogency of their product - a left libertarian such as myself has no media voice (people tell me to try Chris Hayes on Sunday mornings, but I'm working).

Note that Obama just bailed out the 5 top banks in the USA to the tune of $40 billion dollars

That's false.

We'll call it the way of the Entitlementalists Most people think, what we need to do is tax the rich a little bit more and things will improve

For thirty years the country has been reducing taxes on the rich. The main actors in that effort have enjoyed wide and increasing popular support, at least until the scam fell apart in 2008 - and even afterwards.

Since taxing the rich more heavily led to great prosperity, and reducing taxes on the rich led to economic disaster, you might want to consider the notion that the "most people" who think we should tax the rich more are correct in that judgment.

When that day comes. I'd encourage you to begin by reading Adam's Smith's book The Wealth of Nation and then think about the role of limited government. Then read the US Constitution.

Long familiar, thanks.

 

[Michael]

Two questions I'd like to clear up:

(1)

Note that Obama just bailed out the 5 top banks in the USA to the tune of $40 billion dollars. Shoveled that shit right onto the tax payer. Where we should have thousands (perhaps 10s of thousands) of bankers and their minions in prison, instead we have Obama paying them billions and billion and billions of dollars. Want to know where that money comes from? The rich? You may want to think again.

That's false.

From: ZeroHedge which cites the Financial Times:

Plunging deeper into the farce-hole, the Financial Times reports tonight that Obama's foreclosure settlement with the banks over their improper seizure of tax-paying US citizens' homes will in fact be subsidized by those very same US taxpayers. It is a hidden clause (that has not been made public yet) that allows the banks to count future loan modifications under the $30bn (taxpayer funded) HAMP initiative towards their $35bn agreement to restructure obligations under the new settlement. As the FT goes on to note, BofA will be able to use future mods made under HAMP towards the $7.6bn in borrower assistance it is committed to provide - which means, in a (as TARP inspector general Neil Barofsky describes) 'scandalous' turn of events the bank will receive payments for averting a borrower default and be reimbursed by the taxpayer for the principal write-down. We have much stronger words for how we are feeling about this but Barofsky sums it up calmly "It turns the notion that this is about justice and accountability on its head". Are the Big Five banks truly beyond the law?

Which part of the Financial Times article do you disagree with and why?


(2)
Do you think it's moral to steal from an innocent person?

 

[adoucette]

Which part of the Financial Times article do you disagree with and why?

I don't disagree with any of the FT article.

Your post and characterization of it however is wrong.

As the FT article points out:

Federal officials involved in negotiating the settlement defended the arrangement, pointing out that the amount reimbursed to the banks could not be directly used towards fulfilling settlement obligations. For example, if a bank wrote down $100 of loan principal under Hamp and received $21 of reimbursement from taxpayers, the bank only could apply the $79 difference towards the settlement.

Which means they are NOT using Taxpayer funds as part of the settlement.