I envision a system where I can use anything I want as currency. You, as a business owner, would be free to accept my 'currency' or to not accept it. What I envision is natural law - the free market.

Kings often sought hegemony over the striking of currency, and with few exceptions, it always ended badly - with base metals mixed into precious ones to inflate the supply of currency. Making a slip of paper with no commodity backing universal by fiat only codifies the theft inherent to inflation - it does not make it moral.

Lending would work like this - If I (or a bank, or car dealer, or hooker) have money, and you want to borrow it..... we would agree on terms under which you may borrow the money, and the schedule under which the loan would be repaid. It would work like it works when you loan a buddy money. Guess what would happen - with no implicit 'safety net' (that means access to stolen funds to supplement any losses), the lenders would be very careful about to whom they lent, and under what terms.

Do you suppose that no one borrowed or lent money before the creation of the Fed and the imposition of fiat currency?

Quote:

right. my mistake. Hitler's gauletiers had a HUGE sense of obligation towards the population, who they saw as their constituents.

Oh yeah, that's right, fascists weren't really concerned with listening to the general population, nor did they feel any obligation to do their will as public servants. Quite the opposite.

So yes, you're one to talk of fascism, equating the obligations of an elected representative to those of a private citizen running a privately owned forum.

Especially when giggling at the thought that he should knowingly accept a petition from his constituents via fax.

Again, you make me invoke the Saviour's name. Jesus.

"Equating the obligations of an elected representative to those of a private citizen running a privately owned forum" is not fascism, no matter how unfair or ridiculous you might find the allegorical tactic.

I could really lay into you rhetorically over the demonstrable lack of command of the rudiments of our language in your post, but I won't. If you're really this..... err...... to be kind I'll say dense...... y'all should get a little book-lernin fer yerself.

Circpros wrote..

Lending would work like this - If I (or a bank, or car dealer, or hooker) have money, and you want to borrow it..... we would agree on terms under which you may borrow the money, and the schedule under which the loan would be repaid. It would work like it works when you loan a buddy money. Guess what would happen - with no implicit 'safety net' (that means access to stolen funds to supplement any losses), the lenders would be very careful about to whom they lent, and under what terms.

Do you suppose that no one borrowed or lent money before the creation of the Fed and the imposition of fiat currency?

If Karl is asking that the Fed not backstop the banks, and you're saying Karl isn't thinking big enough, what is he missing? How is his plan different than what you propose?

Circpros wrote..

Joe-Bob wrote..

Equating the obligations of an elected representative to those of a private citizen running a privately owned forum

is not fascism, no matter how unfair or ridiculous you might find the allegorical tactic.

You brought up fascism in this thread.


Then you equated, on the one hand, an elected representative with obligations to the people to someone with virtually no obligations running something privately. You painted the prospect of the congressman's office accepting the fax with signatures on it as ridiculous, laughable. So yeah, you're one to talk of fascism.

An end to fiat currency and forced fractional reserve banking. If it were not for the coercive components of the system, I would have no fundamental problem with it, and a lot of the problems we see would fade. Governments who don't have a monopoly under the threat of violence do not debase their currency (and plunder the wealth of it's citizens) because people simply will not accept their specie for transactions. But our overlords not only make it illegal to refuse payment in their intrinsically worthless federal reserve notes, they make it illegal to transact business with any other instrument. Then, they debase the currency, guaranteeing a poorer working and middle class - those with no means to demand redress. To what ends - the propping up of favored business interests (those with enough to bribe them) - you know.... that elusive concept called fascism.

So my fundamental question is...... why spin your wheels trying to eliminate fraud from a system wholly based on fraud and specifically designed to allow fraud? You cannot do it! The answer is not more regulations or more regulators. It is not to search for a few honest men to hold the reigns of power. The answer is to scrap the fraudulent system, or at least to allow those astute enough to recognize it to opt out without facing violence to their person.

Quote:

You brought up fascism in this thread.


Then you equated, on the one hand, an elected representative with obligations to the people to someone with virtually no obligations running something privately. You painted the prospect of the congressman's office accepting the fax with signatures on it as ridiculous, laughable. So yeah, you're one to talk of fascism.

Jesus Christ, Joe-bob. You were badly under-served by the public education system, and I for one feel quite sorry for you.

Are you a plant on here to make me look like a genius by comparison? Seriously.... you should consider a lawsuit against whoever gave you a diploma. Not only can you not grasp the meaning of the word, you continue to use it repeatedly in a completely improper context after being lampooned for it.

I want to assure the reader of this that Joe is not my sock puppet, though he might be some kind of short-bus devils advocate. The pic is a dead give-away.

While I understand the word fascism, I'm thinking you don't understand the colloquialism, "you're one to talk."

In this context, it means you look ridiculous railing against fascism while arguing that an elected representative shouldn't be bothered to accept a petition signed by his constituents.

Quote:

In this context, it means you look ridiculous railing against fascism while arguing that an elected representative shouldn't be bothered to accept a petition signed by his constituents.

I've argued no such thing. I've argued that he has no idea that an individual group is being denied access to him - one of thousands that probably fax his office each week, and frankly not from one of the groups that would tend to get it passed on by the teen underling who pulls the faxes off the machine. Unless you believe that they tracked Dr Paul down, and he instructed them that he's not interested in seeing them, your issue is not with the petition and an apparent disinterest in constituent opinion. I'm betting that a constituent from his district could get his attention quite easily with a trip to his district office. Dropping off (or faxing) 10,000 copies of an identical treatise is a bit of a waste, and doesn't serve much purpose, save enumeration.

It might be that you think he shows bad judgment in the people he's chosen to screen out 'spam'.... They get buried in junk from Moveon.org, Greenpeace, Peta, Americans For/Against...... literally thousands of them. Someone has to make a decision about what gets two feet away from the machine before the janitor carries it off, and it isn't an exact science. I fail to see how any of the conclusions offered about this incident (were it to rise to the level of being called an 'incident") reflect on Dr. Paul's personal interest in hearing from his constituents.

The anti-paulians like to ridicule the passion of his advocates. I would argue that what is really funny is the slapstick routine that ensues when someone presses them for their reasoning for their own positions. If the debate must venture far from "Paul is a Nut" or "He's an anti-semite rascist" or "You Paultards are scary", most get huffy and grab for irrelevant and tangential diversions - ergo, the assigning of profound offensiveness where the much more likely explanation is merely mundane. You could call it playing the martyr.... that's up to you.

Libertarianism (or classical liberalism) is a logically consistent and rigorous philosophy. Because of this inherent reasonability, it is extremely easy to defend in the face of authoritarian or statist apologism - and people do not like to have their suppositions challenged.

Many people think that they are for limited government and freedom, and they bristle at the suggestion that they are party to the loss of their own liberty. They fancy themselves libertarian or conservative, but cannot really feel at rest without the loving hand of the government managing outcomes and choices. A relative purist like Paul reminds them of their own ideological adultery, so he must be destroyed to avoid the conclusion that they are the ones who've made the deal with the devil - a little temporary comfort through promises of safety for the surrender of a little precious freedom. And every time they relinquish a little more of it for a few more promises..... there he sits, indicting them for their worship of pragmatism and the immoral theft that they justify as expedient ("for the greater good", "to protect us from terrorists", "to save the planet", etc).

Now, Joe Dirt (er.... joe boob.... I mean joe bob)..... "You're one to talk" would only be applicable if I were acting in a fascist manner (or defending another doing so) while accusing another of facism. Not taking a petition from a constituent - even if we accept all of your fallacious assertions (which have been previously refuted) and the assignment of the most malevolent intentions - has not one iota of bearing on whether or not a person is a fascist. I stand stupefied by your insistence on picking at this wound - you are clearly making a fool of yourself.

Genesis wrote..

They called originally to ask that I not fax them MY stuff, as I don't live in his district.

Ok. I explained that I got my distribution list from the same place the petition system does (same software) and asked if they wanted me to turn THAT off too.

"Yes".

"You realize that this means you won't get faxes from CONSTITUENTS who sign petitions."

"Yes."

"Uh, you don't want to get faxes of petitions from CONSTITUENTS who LIVE IN YOUR DISTRCT."

"How did you get our fax number?"

"I called and asked for it."

"Impossible, we only give it to constituents."

"I had a fax to send from a constituent. I called, you gave it to me."

"We don't do that."

"Ok, a little green man from Mars gave me the number, or alternatively, I'm psychic and divined it. Take your pick if you don't want to believe your office gave it to me when I called."

"If you're sending it, we don't want it."

"So who pays to send it matters? If a constituent goes to Kinkos, you don't want it?"

"I didn't say that."

"Yes you did. Make up your mind - do you or do you not want petition signatures from constituents?"

"We do not want them."

"Ok - done - but I'm gonna tell them."

"Who?"

"Everyone, including your constituents."

"Fine."

Then today, she has a ****fit when I do exactly what I said I'd do.

Karl, I don't believe that Ron Paul would respond to you in this manner. Sounds to me like this woman you were talking to has a headache or something.

It would be very interesting to get Pauls response if he were directly asked, "Congressman Paul, what do you think of the Bear Stearns bailout?" ......IF PAUL WERE TO SAY HE WAS FOR THE BEAR STEARNS BAILOUT, I CLOCK, WOULD ABANDON ANY SUPPORT OF HIM IMMEDIATELY AND COMPLETELY !!!

Here is something else I found that seems to me to be more consistent with Ron Paul the constitutionalist:

Quote:

Congressman Ron Paul and the Finance Committee Hearing, 4/02/08: A Capitalist Wolf Amongst the Communist Jackals (a forum) http://tinyurl.com/58d8v3

When Capitalist Wolf Ron Paul questioned nervous Ben, Ben said that they were trying to get the interest rate right, that they were still learning, and perhaps, with more experience they will learn to set the interest rate at the correct level.

Ron Paul suggested that maybe we should leave that determination to the free-market. And after those few seconds of truth, the shower of horsedung recommenced.

Ron Paul is the champion of the working man, the saver, the small investor, the small businessman, and the artisan. He is the moral enemy of the inflationist thieves who are destroying the purchasing power of your money. You can vote for yourself, or against yourself. The choice is yours.

Congressman Ron Paul: A Capitalist wolf Amongst the Communist jackals.

Wow. Testy. Everyone take a breath. Take a sip. Take a puff. Whatever.

No so-called elected officials are going to do anything. People can send thousands of faxes; NO ONE is going to do anything. It's too painful.

Even Karl himself has suggested/said the "system" is insolvent. Let's just say it is. People actually expect some elected official(s) to tell Idiot Nation about that?

So just go out and enjoy Wednesday. Numbers on statements are just that: numbers. Pieces of paper in your wallet are just that: pieces of paper.

Let me conclude with one item. The number $100 Trillion has been mentioned in these forums. I believe that is $100,000,000,000,000. Then let's just say that the USA has 300,000,000 occupants.

Unless I am missing something, what elected official wants to stand up and tell every occupant in the USA that they are $333,333 in debt-bets-future promises (or whatever you want to call it). Doesn't that pretty much bankrupt most people?

For those studying up on logic..... here is a deconstruction of Joe Bob's fallacy....


Joe bob says (his premises):

1) Fascists aren't interested in 'constituents' (as evidenced in the fallacious analogue to the foreign oppressors in France that he referenced, but I'll stipulate for brevity).

2)Ron Paul isn't interested in his constituents (again a nested fallacy, and again I'll stipulate for sake of argument).

therefore (his conclusion):

Ron Paul is a fascist (or I am for defending him).

This is a compositional fallacy.

Example:

Premise - Dogs howl at the moon
Premise - I have a raccoon that howls at the moon.
Conclusion - My raccoon is a dog.

Poor arguments are easy to spot when you arm yourself with the proper tools, and break things down to their component parts.

Good ticker Karl.

Paul is a political opportunist and has been successful at it.

Delivering a few babies for free was a smart move to get a lot of support.

But on the few forums I attend, many are finally seeing thru Paul's superficial political beliefs and are seeing him as a spineless loser, albeit a better choice than many others on the left.

He had me fooled up until the crazy marshmellow questions he asked in a hearing a few months ago when he could have done a lot of good instead.

I was interested in RP (as a politician not as a voter) but after the Bear Sterns hearings I lost 100% respect for him.

He could have made a difference - but he just rolled over.

He is lost in his own world or he is bought and paid for.

Either way its the same, vote him out.

Circpros, with all due respect, you are coming across as a fool.

Well I invite you to point out any demonstrable error or logical inconsistencies on my part. That is the stuff of debate - it is not enough to deem everyone a fool for disagreeing with you.

So I'm coming across as a fool - it should be simple enough to demonstrate my foolishness. Have at it.

Quote:

But on the few forums I attend, many are finally seeing thru Paul's superficial political beliefs and are seeing him as a spineless loser, albeit a better choice than many others on the left.

There are bound to be weak hands who fold. Liberty has never been the philosophy of the majority - most are too stupid or ignorant (lazy?) to grasp it's implications, and among those who grasp it, many don't have the stomach to be her advocate. Some of us do. Most just want their slice of the pie, and are willing to acquiesce and not cause waves so long as they get it.

The cycles are the cycles.

You can rail incessantly at the suicidal irrationality and self-deceit of the masses, but you are whistling in the wind. The sheeple and the governing authorities might look back at your pleads for reason, but only briefly and with glazed eyes for they know not of what you speak. Their sensibilities were long since lost to the "animal spirits" of human nature.

Only after the crash might the masses wonder why, and even then they are not honestly seeking the correct answer, lest they have to overcome their addiction to themselves and their misleaders.

Eventually the truth-tellers forfeit in the face of intractable extraordinary popular delusions and simply look to personally persevere in the face of collective suicide as best possible.

Such is my lot.

Good luck to those who still have some fight left in them.

Karl

I suggest you keep sending the faxes and petitions. Reply that you will only stop when Ron Paul himself calls or writes or emails or otherwise asks you to stop.

No way a politician would ever commit themselves to an action like that so it could continue forever. Get them to embarass themselves by conducting a long running campaign. Make a record of the conversations with his staffers and publish them. Thats exactly the sort of funny/embarassing thing that goes viral in a big way.

Newb, Jennifer Bailey explicitly threatened to immediately change the fax number if I didn't stop sending the faxes "pronto."

heh

do we have a volunteer who is willing to do the faxing

Gen: Thanks for "outing" Ron Paul. Best action you've taken here lately!

Circpros

Denninger is the new Hamilton.

He intends to make a Burr of anyone who sees otherwise.

'Fraud' is his banner to convey legitimacy.

If you differ in any form he usually labels you a 'whiner' while he whines about YOU sitting on your ass.

Quote:

Newb, Jennifer Bailey explicitly threatened to immediately change the fax number if I didn't stop sending the faxes "pronto."

I recommend making them do that. Then find out a new fax number and start sending it to that one. Make them attempt to force you to stop. All the while be reasonable and say "Ron Paul needs to know this. If he wants it to stop all he has to do is personally call or write."

The idea is to get them to overreact. If you can get them mad enough to get a court order on you then you will have hit the motherlode in terms of viral propagation. Easy to get that onto the local news at minimum and hence onto YouTube.

Think of it in terms of a guerilla campaign. There was a case in the UK where a bunch of anti-fast food campaigners got sued by McDonalds for something they wrote in a pamphlet. Classic legal mistake, because then the protesters countersued on the same docket and it was impossible for McDonalds to drop the case without their consent. They forced it all the way through the courts to its conclusion, generating tons of bad press for McD's. Hauled in McDonalds senior execs to testify under oath etc. In end, the protesters "lost" the case and got a slap on the wrist judgement. Massive "shoot yourself in the foot" action by McDonalds.

I'm not saying you should carry it on until lawsuits start flying but it could be in your interest to make them overreact to you if you want publicity.

Naw.

This is plenty good enough.

New Ticker is up.