Ron Paul - What has he accomplished?

[SempiternalHarbingercaptain of 1,000]

Great stuff Lin! I don't think you are misunderstanding anything. If anything you are on the right track. It can be really hard at times to find the truth. There's ton of partial truth out there and it can be difficult sifting through it all and finding what the truth really is. I've seen really convincing things only to later find out they were completely false or misrepresented. And this has happened on many occasions.

Since we are talking about Lincoln and Article 1 Section 8 I thought I would add a few things..

Article one section 8 of the US Constitution which states Congress has the power "to coin money AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF" Austrians claim the clause does not say exclusively. But does it say anywhere in the constitution that anyone other than congress has this right/power?? Why would Congress be given the power to regulate the value? Why would they need that power? And if they have that power, does that not mean WE the people do not have that reserved to Ourselves? I believe it does. Also, how can congress regulate the value when the price of Gold is set per say?? How can they regulate it in a free market free of government intervention? They cant. It would be similar to what we have today, A market free of government intervention.

Congress can never do the job the constitution gave them which is to regulate the value of the currency In the interest of the American people. Whoever does coin Money and regulate the Value thereof holds sovereignty. Please give me an historical example if I am wrong.

"On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: "Don't steal – the government hates competition." --Ron Paul

"And the gold coin standard is the most important because governments cheat. You can’t trust government." -- Ron Paul

“Under the gold standard, the supply of money regulated itself." (not we the people)The government kept within limits. Banks were more cautious. Savings were high because credit was tight and saving was rewarded. This approach to economics is the foundation of a sustainable prosperity.” -- Ron Paul

" The free market regulates itself." - Ron Paul

And this is one of my problems with Austrians. They act as if we are functioning under some true form of government. Austrians always blame government. They blame our government for printing money out of thin air. It doesn't, the Fed does. And the truth is our government doesn't run the United States and hasn't for who knows how long. But is run by the international bankers and big private corporations.

The power to create money has been usurped from WE THE PEOPLE. By no less than a private international bank. Which issues our money as DEBT and lends it back to us at interest. The cartel gives the appearance that governments are creating our money, and Austrians love to blame big bad government and fiat money. But they are just pawns of the cartel. One side of the argument. We can turn this all around, we the people can get back our country ONLY by repenting, forgiving others, and by reclaiming the power to create our money as article 1 section 8 says. This real problem of exploitation can only be overcome when the use of the money created benefits all the people. A market free of government involvement, the law of the jungle prevails and the continuation of the exploitation of the weak and strong. Austrian's really want is government completely out of the picture. They want to abolish Article 1, Section 8, destroying the true sovereignty of the US Federal Government. I could be wrong but to me it appears by advocating a free market, free of government involvement all we are doing is undermining the governments power to control the value of currency and its issuance. And by blaming government we destroying our only hope. Besides turning from our wicked ways.

"The free market regulates itself." - Ron Paul

And if I am wrong please show me. But from what I understand, no nation who doesn't create and regulate their own money supply is sovereign. Who ever actually does is able to effectively dominate the economy and government. Those private corporate financial interests will now dominate the economy and also the government. And that is called fascism.

What Austrians advocate, including Ron Paul is abandoning Article 1, Section 8:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

So, who is going to be the "hidden-hands" guiding this virtuous "free-market" free of government intervention?

It would be the money interests. It would be big international corporate financial interests. The ones who've looted the American people recently. J.P Morgan, Goldman Sucks, Bank of America, etc, etc, ect..... And by going to a free market what we will have effectively done is move the power of the purse out of the hands of an elected body, into the hands of private corporate interests.

GOLD

In this virtuous "free-market" system free from government, Austrians want to make gold and silver legal tender so that "sound money" can compete on a level playing field. Now who is going to lead the way? Who in this world owns enough gold and silver to set up a competing currency bank backed by precious metals? Simple, the banksters. They'd be the very ones setting up competing banks under this free market system making loans at interest. That would be in the banks and big corporations best interest and they would have zero resistance doing this with free of government intervention. There would be no one able to stop them. They would gain total control of this free market in no time without any consequences. It is in the gold bugs best interest to compete with the free market and set up competing currency banks to make loans at interest. They have done this for ages..

The only way we'd know for certain a competing currency certificate was actually redeemable for a precious metal, would be to have some sort of publicly monitored depository. But if government can't be trusted who would be responsible for this? The Free Market regulates itself remember. I wonder if that's in the plans. If not, the ability to loan out more certificates than you have reserves for would prove irresistible. Than were back to fiat money. And that leads to the same dead end. And I read no where in the US Constitution about “free competition in currency" or “competing currencies.“ And I don't see anywhere where it says to let the “free market” regulate itself.

“Free Competition in Currency" or “Competing currencies“?? Once again I ask you where in the constitution does it says we need to have competing currencies?? Nowhere! Where does it say anywhere to let the “free market” regulate itself??

Greenbacks and Abraham Lincoln

Austrians condemn Abraham Lincoln and label him a tyrant. That his greenbacks were an act of treason and unconstitutional all because it was paper. I disagree with this and here is why. Who and Why was Abraham Lincoln assassinated? During the Civil War Lincoln needed money. He went to the European banks and asked for money. They told him they would help him but they wanted 19% interest for the loans. (an above quote states 24% to 36%. Either way it was enough to enslave America for a very long time) Now for a few seconds put yourself in Lincolns shoes.... What options do you have?? Either the government could succumb to debt slavery money from the bankers. Or? Lincoln did not have the luxury or the time to go dig up enough gold and silver to cover the coast of War. Not an option. So accepting loans at interest from the banks and not being able to go digging were not options..... What would you do?

Well Abraham Lincoln bypassed the European banks and decided to do what many of our founding Fathers advocated. Which was create an independent and inherently debt free currency. The Greenback. Shortly after this measure was taken an internal document circulated between private British and American Banking interest stated (which is partially quoted above); "Slavery is but the owning of labor, and carries with it the care of labor, while the European plan... is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money. It will not do to allow the Greenback...As we cannot control that." In essence, today federal reserve system is in fact a modern day slavery system.

So Lincoln had two option which were to either...

Government could either print its own "DEBT FREE" money with no interest attached?

Or

Accept Debt slavery money of private bankers at huge interest rates attached?

What would you choose? The European Banks lost so much money. It took years and years for the bankers to recover from this. The Greenbacks were the reason. And Bottom line, Lincoln and the Greenbacks had to be taken out. And they succeed in both.

Now here is something everyone will find absolutely fascinating. But the question must be asked... Were the Greenbacks constitutional? Here is one of the fathers from the Austrian School of Economics. Here is the 1884 version with commentary by Nobel Prize winning economist, Prof. Milton Friedman of Stanford University.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Julliard v. Greenman (110 U.S. 421, 448) in 1884 ruled that:

“Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coins or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals.” (So it first was ruled Constitutional.)

Nobel Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman describes some of the history of the battle leading up to this historic decision by the U.S. Supreme Court:

“During the Civil War, Congress authorized greenbacks and made them a legal tender for all debts public and private. After the Civil War, in the first of the famous greenback cases, the Supreme Court declared the issuance of greenbacks unconstitutional. One 'fascinating aspect of this decision is that it was delivered by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, who had been Secretary of the Treasury when the first greenbacks were issued. Not only did he not disqualify himself, but in his capacity as Chief Justice convicted himself of having been responsible for an unconstitutional action in his capacity as Secretary of the Treasury.' (I agree with Milton Friedman and find it truly fascinating)

“Subsequently an enlarged and reconstituted Court reversed the first decision by a majority of five to four, affirming that making greenbacks a legal tender was constitutional, with Chief Justice Chase as one of the dissenting justices." (Of course Chase voted it unconstitutional. I would say this is a big time conflict of Interest.)

“It is neither feasible nor desirable to restore a gold-or-silver coin standard, but we do need a commitment to sound money. The best arrangement currently would be to require the monetary authorities to keep the percentage rate of growth of the monetary base within a fixed range. This is a particularly difficult amendment to draft because it is so closely linked to the particular institutional structure. One version would be:

‘Congress shall have the power to authorize non-interest-bearing obligations of the government in the form of currency or book entries, provided that the total dollar amount outstanding increases by no more than 5 percent per year and no less than 3 percent.’

“It might be desirable to include a provision that two-thirds of each House of Congress, or some similar qualified majority, can waive the requirement in case of a declaration of war, the suspension to terminate annually unless renewed."

“A Constitutional Amendment would be the most effective way to establish confidence in the stability of the rule. However, it is clearly not the only way to impose the rule. Congress could equally well legislate it."

Quoted from: A Program for Monetary Stability, by. Dr. Milton Friedman, Fordham University Press (N.Y. 1960, 1992), pgs. X, 66-76, 100-101; and, Free to Choose by Dr. Milton & Rose Friedman, Harcourt Brace & Co. (San Diego 1980, 1990), pgs. 307-308.

Gold money systems just do not work. If someone would like to give me historical examples of this not being the case I am all ears. Delving into monetary history in the 1800s makes it obvious that gold is the money of plutocracy, not democracy, not freedom for a sovereign nation. It's an intellectually dishonest approach that will eventually leave its proponents disgraced on the ash-heap of history. If you actually do any honest research of the 1800's, and 1970's, you would see the fallacy of "gold money." Any open-minded review of the monetary history of the world shows that gold is absolutely manipulable by bankers! Austrian's economics has always worked out great for the world’s richest people --- the holders of the majority of gold. Gold money has never worked well to provide freedom from serfdom for the common man.

Early America had no gold. They were forced, in order to have a medium of exchange, to print their own homegrown paper money. This was money issued by the individual colonial governments, without debt. It worked very well, and the colonies began to prosper.

Unfortunately, as of 1694, England's tally stick system --- also a debt-free money system --- had been killed with the founding of the Bank of England. After 700 years of prosperity under the debt-free tally stick system, England was suddenly thrust into a situation where they had to borrow all of their money into existence, at interest, from bankers. Of course this new money, was backed by gold. How did that work out?

By the mid-1700s, the interest on this new national debt was crippling the empire on which the sun never set. Fully 75% of British taxation went to paying just the interest on England’s titanic debt. As a result, England was forced to squeeze increasingly exorbitant taxation out of all her colonies; America was no exception. Of course, they demanded this payment in gold, but America had no gold. To the gold money system of the bankers, America’s debt free “colonial script” was worthless.

So, the British passed the Currency Act of 1764. This outlawed America’s “worthless” fiat paper money and ordered all Americans to pay their taxes in fiat gold or silver coin. The result was the same as would occur today if the average American was told that they could no longer make transactions in anything but gold or silver coin. Most of us would immediately be bankrupt. Look what befell the American colonies. As Franklin put it:

"In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."

To Ben Franklin this return to a gold money system was the basic cause for the American Revolution.

"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the Colonies [their] money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction."

So, to Franklin, this banning of America's debt free currency was the primary and underlying cause of the American Revolution.

Eustace Mullins on some fascinating history on Rockefeller, Lincoln, and JFK.


Winston Churchill, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, reintroduced the gold-standard in 1925. In 1932, Churchill testified the following before the House of Commons:

"When I was moved by many arguments and forces in 1925 to return to the gold standard, I was assured by the highest experts, and our experts are men of great ability and of indisputable integrity and sincerity, that we were anchoring ourselves to reality and stability, and I accepted their advice. I take for myself and my colleagues of other days whatever degree of blame and burden for having accepted their advice.

"But what happened ? We have had no reality, no stability. The price of gold has risen since then by more than 70 per cent. That is as if a 12-inch foot rule had been stretched to 19 or 20 inches…. Look at what this has meant to everybody who has been compelled to execute their contracts upon this irrationally enhanced scale. Look at the gross unfairness of such distortion to all producers of new wealth, and to all that labour and science and enterprise can give us. Look at the enormously increased volume of commodities which have to be created in order to pay off the same mortgage debt or loan. Minor fluctuation might well be ignored, but I say quite seriously that this monetary convulsion has now reached a pitch where I am persuaded that the producers of new wealth will not tolerate indefinitely so hideous an oppression. . . .

"I therefore point to this evil, and to the search for the method's of remedying it as the first, second and third of all the problems which should command and rivet our thoughts."

Here is Ezra Pound, who was one of the all time great poets of our time and was Eustace Mullins mentor. He was a threat to the establishment and was a political prisoner and was put in a mental hospital without trial, which many have described as a literal hell hole. And for those not familiar with Eustace Mullins, he wrote the book "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve." Much of Edward G Griffin famous book, "The Creature of Jekyll Island" was in fact plagiarized and stolen from Eustace Mullins. It also should be noted that E. Mullins and those around him paid a very severe price for trying to share the truth. His family was brutally assaulted and interrogated through out the years. He suffered grievously for his work to bring the dark things to light. His Parents were murdered for his work. Every Job he had the FBI would come in and he would be fired the next day. All those around them were harassed beyond imagination. There homes raided and destroyed many times. Along with many historical documents. He couldn't get anyone to fund or publish his works because of fear. The man has had to endure many unimaginable things, as well as those who publicly spoke out and help him. The pain and suffering he had to go through to obtain his information cannot be put into words. Another close friend of his who helped with his work was also sent to prison for 6 years without a trial (FDR)while his son was murdered and covered up. Eustace Mullins could even keep a job at a library stacking papers, But yet Ron Paul can stay in political power for over 35 years? FWIW, I will warn those who pick up his work, he is a man with allot of built up hate. I can't blame him knowing a little of what he has gone through. He hates Jews for the most part and as with everything else in this world use the spirit of discernment. He is not the source of all truth in any way. But he is a really amazing historian. Now back to his Mentor....

“The present war dates at least from the founding of the Bank of England at the end of the 17th century, 1694-8. Half a century later, the London usurocracy shut down on the issue of paper money by the Pennsylvania colony, A.D. 1750. This is not usually given prominence in the U.S. school histories. The 13 colonies rebelled, quite successfully, 26 years later, A.D. 1776.” According to Pound, it was the money issue (above all) that united the Allies during the second 20th-century war against Germany: “Gold. Nothing else uniting the three governments, England, Russia, United States of America. That is the interest–gold, usury, debt, monopoly, class interest, and possibly gross indifference and contempt for humanity.”

And elsewhere: “Gold is a coward. Gold is not the backbone of nations. It is their ruin. A coward, at the first breath of danger gold flows away, gold flows out of the country.” Brigham Young would agree.

That is the real face of Gold as Pound saw it.

Pound, evidently, had no problems seeing the self evident: that the Gold Standards of the past and most certainly of modern history, beginning in Amsterdam, were banker operations.

Neither had Eustace Mullins, who left very little to guess in his book:

“The international gold dealings of the Federal Reserve System, and its active support in helping the League of Nations to force all the nations of Europe and South America back on the gold standard for the benefit of international gold merchants like Eugene Meyer, Jr. and Albert Strauss, is best demonstrated by a classic incident, the sterling credit of 1925."

J.E. Darling wrote, in the English periodical, “Spectator”, on January 10, 1925 that:

“Obviously, it is of the first importance to the United States to induce England to resume the gold standard as early as possible. An American controlled Gold Standard, which must inevitably result in the United States becoming the world’s supreme financial power, makes England a tributary and satellite, and New York the world’s financial centre.”

Mr. Darling fails to point out that the American people have as little to do with this as the British people, and that resumption of the gold standard by Britain would benefit only that small group of international gold merchants who own the world’s gold. No wonder that “Banker’s Magazine” gleefully remarked in July, 1925 that:

“The outstanding event of the past half year in the banking world was the restoration of the gold standard.”

=========================

And one last fascinating quote that goes along with what has already been said. I posted it in another thread somewhere but I will quote it again now that more people are now familiar with Eustace Mullins. In his book "The World Order, A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism"

"Hence his [Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England] campaign in favour of completely autonomous central banks, dominating their own financial markets and deriving their power from common agreement among themselves. They would succeed in taking out of the political realm those problems which are essential for the development and prosperity of the national financial security, distribution of credit, movement of prices. They would thus prevent internal political struggles from harming the wealth and the economic advancement of nations."

"In short, Norman wished to see the imposition of the World Order over the financial affairs of the nations. It was this agreement among the central banks, rather than the front organization, the League of Nations, which became their final instrument of power. Crucial to these arrangements was the monetarist school, the Austrian School of Economics, an outgrowth of the Pan-Europe movement."

Carol Quigley said an elite group of global financiers were bent on controlling the world. He said, Their goal was "nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole." This system was "to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements." He called this clique simply the "international bankers." Their essence was not race, religion or nationality but was just a passion for control over other all humans. And the key to their success was that they would control and manipulate the money system of a nation while letting it appear to be controlled by the government. Today they not only control the money supply, they now control the creation and the own most of what will soon replace it.

And that is a wrap folks. Though it may not be scholarly it is my 2 cents. And that my friends is not redeemable in Gold.

[JasonI am a nobody!]

So....up to this point in my studies, I feel that there is some cause for concern, and rethinking about RP. Col. Flagg asked Thomas what makes him think twice, and for the sake of getting my head organized, I think I will type out a response of my own...

Rockefeller is the kiss of death in my book, due to this family's unelected influence in all things political/economical. However, as I've said before, I don't like to hang my hat on connections alone, albeit, Rockefeller is just the beginning.

More immediate connections that concern me are

--Doug Wead, 'former' Bushy, and fully donated to Mitt last time, even those he was said to have 'supported RP last election cycle.'

--Bilderberger Peter Theil donating $2.6 million to Endorse Liberty PAC (btw, this is far and away his largest donation to a PAC or candidate; see fec.gov)

--CFR Lew Lehrman, who is still helping RP with getting back on the gold standard (with the extra caveat of convening another internatl monetary conference)

While these items (and the foundation funding and spawning) increase my suspicions/concerns, they have not yet, for me, confirmed or ruled out conspiracy/deception.

At the end of the day, it is the ideas that matter. Actions (record) and ideas are the fruits by which I can *try* to discern.

As I have said recently, the biggest alarm for me is the denationalization of the money supply. Yes I want to end the fed, but after what I have learned so far about the clause in Article 1 section 8 as well as practices and rulings (what I've seen so far) in the 19th century, I do not think ending the fed should come by way of denationalization (competing currencies, unless you are talking about foreign coin, since there is precedent for that and is provided for in the clause). Coining money, etc was exclusively delegated to the congress who represents us. Amendment 10 states that only those things not delegated to the fed govt, are reserved for the states and the people. I agree with Justice Story's comments on this clause as well as those of James Madison, which I have posted earlier. The only examples I could find of private minting were in areas where access to the govt mint was out of the question, in terms of distance and safety, and when a mint was fully established, then the local minter(s) discontinued.

If I am misunderstanding something, please feel free to share....

Doug screams CIA to me (Mercy Corps NGO)....but that could just be me. Lewis Lehrman (initial investor in Arbusto Energy Inc) is also a close friend of the Bush family (and a lecturer at Hillsdale College in Michigan, in the Ludwig von Mises “Champions of Freedom” series). I wouldn't leave out legal adviser Bruce Fein (worked for the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation). Grover Glenn Norquist (CFR) is another name who floats in via all the work that Jesse Benton has done for him for a number of years. Morton C. Blackwell is another name via John Tate who has worked for him for several decades (in Leadership Institute) and ties into the Free Congress Foundation (funded by Joseph Coors who also funds the Leadership Institute, Heritage Foundation) and Paul Weyrich (who co-founded the Heritage Foundation). And Murray Rothbard is Ron Paul's self proclaimed mentor....

...many of these guys as well as a number of Ron Paul Campaign staff all have connections at Hillsdale College...

...here's some supporting information for comments above -

Arbusto Energy (sometimes referred to as Arbusto Oil)[1] was a petroleum and energy company formed in Midland, Texas, in 1977, for former US President George W. Bush by a group of investors which included Dorothy Bush, Lewis Lehrman, William Henry Draper III, Bill Gammell, and James R. Bath. The company's chief financial officer was K. Michael Conaway, now a United States Congressman from Texas.

It was later revealed that Bath made an investment of $50,000 while representing Salem bin Laden of the Saudi Binladin Group. This fact became controversial after the September 11, 2001 attacks due to Salem bin Laden being an older, half-brother of Osama bin Laden, who is alleged to have planned and financed the attacks. Upon Salem bin Laden's death in a 1988 airplane crash, in Texas, his interest in Arbusto (along with other Binladin Group assets), passed to Khalid bin Mahfouz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbusto_Energy

Lehrman is a former President of Rite Aid and conservative activist. He is a former member of the Board of Directors of the Project for the New American Century, as well as a Trustee to the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Lehrman

Coors was perhaps best known for his conservative politics. A founding member of the Heritage Foundation along with Paul Weyrich and Edwin Feulner, Coors provided $250,000 to the think tank to cover its first year budget. He was also involved with the founding of the Free Congress Foundation and the Council for National Policy. He was a member of Ronald Reagan's Kitchen Cabinet, helping finance Reagan's political career as governor of California and U.S. president. [1] Coors was also known to have privately donated $65,000 to buy a light cargo plane for the Contras effort in Nicaragua during Reagan's presidency. That donation went through National Security Council adviser Oliver North.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Coors

....the same Oliver North that created and funded FEMA with CIA drug money until they could get Congress to start footing the bill....

...an insightful little tool that I discovered yesterday -

http://www.muckety.com/Lewis-E-Lehrman/1902.muckety

http://www.muckety.com/Citizens-for-Ame ... 92.muckety

http://www.muckety.com/Grover-D-Norquist/3963.muckety

http://www.muckety.com/Ralph-Reed-Jr/9867.muckety

http://www.muckety.com/Peter-A-Thiel/4788.muckety

http://www.muckety.com/Morton-C-Blackwell/4305.muckety

...you can double click on connections to expand the circle out and search around...isn't it a small world??? One little ol' foundation like the Hoover Institution can open you up to whole new world of influence and connections....of course it doesn't include all of them - for example Council on Foreign Relations for Norquist or Heritage Foundation and Project for a New American Century for Lehrman....but it does hit Peter Thiel for 2008 Bilderberg Conference....although you won't know he's on the steering committee. It also shows past tense for stuff that is current like Hoover Institution for Peter Thiel.

...but its a nice little tool for cruising around checking out connections (gives you names) that you can then google for further research and clarification. For example on Grover Norquist you could double click on American Spectator to find a connection with George Gilder who is also involved in several endeavors with Lewis Lehrman...or again through American Spectator to Richard Mellon Scaife which then opens up some top tier foundations (Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institution, William J Clinton Foundation, Free Congress Foundation - Paul Weyrich, etc etc etc) ..or back through Norquist to GoProud which then connects you in with Peter Thiel (although its not listed its included in my previous research)....and supported below -

Homocon was a meeting for GOProud members on September 25th, 2010 in New York City. Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and GOProud donor, hosted the event at his home in the city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOProud

List of names you can play with here -
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=18158&start=240#p263280

and foundations/institutes/etc here -
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=18158&start=270#p263281
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=18158&start=270#p263361

[linj2flycaptain of 1,000]

Yea that muckety site is really cool. Frankly all this foundation stuff feels rather incestuous to me. The inbreeding is crazy.
Im typing on my ipod so icant go grab all the links, but yesterday i looked into the colloque lippmann meeting in paris before wwii. (this was the predeccor sp? to the mont pelerin society (MPS) I this it was1938. Anyway walter lippmann was a founding member of the CFR in 1919, with many of the same people that him write woodrow wilson's fourteen points( it was a group called 'the inquiry' if my memory serves me right). He was a very influential journalist, and coined the phrase 'manufactured consent.' he contributed this thesis of manufactured consent to the MPS of which he was a member for 20 yrs.

Fast forward to today. The Lew Rockwell (rothbardians) maintain that there was a schism btwn them and the MPS. Mises was never very comfortable with some of the people...too interventionist or compromising for his like. It doesnt take long reading LRC to get a feel for their hate of heritage et al. They maintain that what we call neocons today co-opted the MPS. Whether their hate is sincere i know not, but that is what they print.

Also, reading more of rothbard's stateless ideas gave more context to what rp said in the motorhome diaries. He means it. Rothbardians know that in order to get to a staeless society we have hit reverse on the continuum and pass thru constitutionalism to get there. See rothbard memo 'what is to be done.'. Gradualism

[pritchet1captain of 1,000]

"Well, not as much as we had hoped he'd do" is my answer.

I participated in my first ever caucus this morning and there were literally hundreds of folks in attendance (and many between Temple sessions by the way). Obama would be proud! He certainly got the vote out for the Republican Party today. I was a Ron Paul supporter in my precinct along with 3 others. Santorum got 5 supporters. The others (out of 20 that showed up and actually found the table) were all Romney supporters. I was a candidate as delegate and consistently got 8 votes out of 20, but 11 were needed and I lost out to other members of the church in our precinct who were delegates for Romney. So after 3 hours we had 2 delegates who are LDS and one alternate who is LDS and all for Romney. The excuses for Ron Paul were all the same - "if he could win, we'd support him, but he won't win." Self-fulfillng prophecy. "Ron Paul has not been successful, therefore he will not be successful." "Romney has a much broader scope of experience as a businessman, therefore, he is more qualified for the job." We had lots of Ron Paul supporters in attendance and many other folks were turned away, because they showed up late, due to a misinformation campaign blast night saying the caucus meeting was delayed. It was - for them - and they were locked out. And they were vocal about it. It reminded me of the 10 virgins and who were ready and who were not.

The Sealer at the Temple told me to show up early or not show up. I showed up early and was at my precinct table (only after I found the correct building - due to more intended misinformation) all by myself for nearly 2 hours and figured I'd be the PTO, secretary and vote myself in as a delegate. Then gradually 19 other folks showed up to crowd around our little table. The facility was packed by the time the precincts began the straw voting process. What a hilariously funny process, gamed by the professional Republicans! We didn't have enough voting sheets so somebody had copied the top sheet of the multi-part form - which when used became invalidated. So we went hunting for more ballots - and were successful in locating them. If we had not, there would have only been 10 of us voting and not 20. Some precincts had 40 members crowded around their tables.

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if Ron Paul came in as VP under Mitt Romney - but we know Romney would never consider asking for Paul to be a sidekick, right? Right?

I don't want Jeb Bush as the shoo-in during the Republican Convention in Tampa Florida so Dr. Kissinger's Chinese visit "prediction" becomes true. Why Florida this year? Bush country. So maybe that 'prediction" has legs...

Dr. Ron Paul delivers - babies - not political results.

I went back to the Temple to do some more ordinance work, since this is the last day for two more weeks, due to maintenance closure activities. When asked, I said I had participated in the political soap opera.

And my precinct delegate did the Washing in Initiatory in the afternoon - with me as proxy - he's also a Temple Cousin. ;^)

You can SEE where OUR priorities are based and focussed!

I'm thinking this is the last election or the POTUS declares Martial Law and suspends elections, so he can stay in power in the USSA.

We are so screwed! This nation needs to repent big-time.

[linj2flycaptain of 1,000]

Interesting experience, pritchet--thanks for sharing! My cousin got voted to be a delegate in Clark co. I don't know which candidate she is supporting, but this is her first experience as well. It does seemed to be gamed in every state. We ARE screwed. I hate to be down on hope, but then again, the only organization I've ever sworn loyalty to is the kingdom of God. So....I'm very anxious for things to move forward, but also feel unprepared spiritually. I'm jealous you get to the temple so often; it's been a couple of months for me (of course, ours has just been closed for maintenance, too) and I'm feeling it. Sounds like it was a night and day experience being at the soap opera vs. the temple...

I need to get back with you on the temple cousins...nothing's moving in my family. My latest sob story--I just lost my database to the hard drive; no backup. My uncle will be able to send me the base file, but everything I've added for the last 2 years is gone. Most of it I posted to nFS as the info was completed, but all the little trails are gone.
Learned a hard lesson, and got an external hard drive this week.

[pritchet1captain of 1,000]

Answered in a PM regarding database loss sob stories (and it happened to me this week too), but yes, it was good to "compare" the world with God's Kingdom today and focus on what is really important. This political scene just makes me want to hold my nose - and I did today, but I literally got a nosebleed in the process!

[JasonI am a nobody!]

A few basic thoughts yesterday and today regarding linj2fly's thoughts on "ideas that matter".

So here we are a year away from the century mark for the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is just a name for a group of private banks. The cartel (Federal Reserve) now owns the majority of our government debt. In terms of economic control over our society....I'd say they are at the top of the pyramid.

Ron Paul says he wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve (audit, competing currencies, etc). This sounds good.

But he also says he wants to sell off our gold and land to satisfy the debt. What did it cost them to loan us this debt?

So Ron Paul's solution to the problem is to sell our land & gold to satisfy the debt that cost them nothing. And then switch to competing currencies in a market them dominate if not have monopoly over. Doesn't make any sense to me....and I don't see why they wouldn't support that. Thoughts?

Wouldn't the solution be as Semp discussed in some detail a post or two up....to take back the control of our money.....print a bunch up and clear out the debt....isn't that what Lincoln did??? Of course he got shot....

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Yea that muckety site is really cool. Frankly all this foundation stuff feels rather incestuous to me. The inbreeding is crazy.
Im typing on my ipod so icant go grab all the links, but yesterday i looked into the colloque lippmann meeting in paris before wwii. (this was the predeccor sp? to the mont pelerin society (MPS) I this it was1938. Anyway walter lippmann was a founding member of the CFR in 1919, with many of the same people that him write woodrow wilson's fourteen points( it was a group called 'the inquiry' if my memory serves me right). He was a very influential journalist, and coined the phrase 'manufactured consent.' he contributed this thesis of manufactured consent to the MPS of which he was a member for 20 yrs.

Fast forward to today. The Lew Rockwell (rothbardians) maintain that there was a schism btwn them and the MPS. Mises was never very comfortable with some of the people...too interventionist or compromising for his like. It doesnt take long reading LRC to get a feel for their hate of heritage et al. They maintain that what we call neocons today co-opted the MPS. Whether their hate is sincere i know not, but that is what they print.

Also, reading more of rothbard's stateless ideas gave more context to what rp said in the motorhome diaries. He means it. Rothbardians know that in order to get to a staeless society we have hit reverse on the continuum and pass thru constitutionalism to get there. See rothbard memo 'what is to be done.'. Gradualism

They (foundations/institutes) certainly breed like crazy and inter-pollinate - "incestuous" as you put it is probably the best applicable term. Fascinating aspect is they all operate tax free and don't have to reveal who their donors are. From what I can tell less than 200 people fund the vast majority of them in one form or another (like funding one foundation that funds multiple others)....but its a big black box and very difficult to track back other than key people that are board members or members in general.

Definitely requires some time and research to get a basic picture.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

A few basic thoughts yesterday and today regarding linj2fly's thoughts on "ideas that matter".

So here we are a year away from the century mark for the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is just a name for a group of private banks. The cartel (Federal Reserve) now owns the majority of our government debt. In terms of economic control over our society....I'd say they are at the top of the pyramid.

Ron Paul says he wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve (audit, competing currencies, etc). This sounds good.

But he also says he wants to sell off our gold and land to satisfy the debt. What did it cost them to loan us this debt?

So Ron Paul's solution to the problem is to sell our land & gold to satisfy the debt that cost them nothing. And then switch to competing currencies in a market them dominate if not have monopoly over. Doesn't make any sense to me....and I don't see why they wouldn't support that. Thoughts?

Wouldn't the solution be as Semp discussed in some detail a post or two up....to take back the control of our money.....print a bunch up and clear out the debt....isn't that what Lincoln did??? Of course he got shot....

Yeah, great idea for the banksters. Get the reaL assets of this country for nothing. A look into the Greek debt situation would reveal a similar story. Get the country to sign on to debt through control of the government. The Greek people get little in return for the money borrowed under unethical terms and arrangements. Place the blame on the lazy, socialist Greek people. Take posession of real property in Greece, in exchange for the unpayable debt. A recipe for lawful theft, while placing the blame on the victims.

I love the idea of paying the Fed back with a new paper currency. Then make it worthless. Give them some of their own medicine.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

The choices are clear - bankruptcy or war.

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

The choices are clear - bankruptcy or war.

Now don't be so unimaginative...

It'll probably be both.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Yea that muckety site is really cool. Frankly all this foundation stuff feels rather incestuous to me. The inbreeding is crazy.
Im typing on my ipod so icant go grab all the links, but yesterday i looked into the colloque lippmann meeting in paris before wwii. (this was the predeccor sp? to the mont pelerin society (MPS) I this it was1938. Anyway walter lippmann was a founding member of the CFR in 1919, with many of the same people that him write woodrow wilson's fourteen points( it was a group called 'the inquiry' if my memory serves me right). He was a very influential journalist, and coined the phrase 'manufactured consent.' he contributed this thesis of manufactured consent to the MPS of which he was a member for 20 yrs.

Fast forward to today. The Lew Rockwell (rothbardians) maintain that there was a schism btwn them and the MPS. Mises was never very comfortable with some of the people...too interventionist or compromising for his like. It doesnt take long reading LRC to get a feel for their hate of heritage et al. They maintain that what we call neocons today co-opted the MPS. Whether their hate is sincere i know not, but that is what they print.

Also, reading more of rothbard's stateless ideas gave more context to what rp said in the motorhome diaries. He means it. Rothbardians know that in order to get to a staeless society we have hit reverse on the continuum and pass thru constitutionalism to get there. See rothbard memo 'what is to be done.'. Gradualism

They (foundations/institutes) certainly breed like crazy and inter-pollinate - "incestuous" as you put it is probably the best applicable term. Fascinating aspect is they all operate tax free and don't have to reveal who their donors are. From what I can tell less than 200 people fund the vast majority of them in one form or another (like funding one foundation that funds multiple others)....but its a big black box and very difficult to track back other than key people that are board members or members in general.

Definitely requires some time and research to get a basic picture.

Good place for the Fed owners to put some of that money they print up. When you think about the fact, that they can create any amount of money and give it to anyone they wish, I wouldn't be suprised to find out they were behind most or all these foundations. Talk about the power of the printing press, digital or otherwise.

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Yea that muckety site is really cool. Frankly all this foundation stuff feels rather incestuous to me. The inbreeding is crazy.
Im typing on my ipod so icant go grab all the links, but yesterday i looked into the colloque lippmann meeting in paris before wwii. (this was the predeccor sp? to the mont pelerin society (MPS) I this it was1938. Anyway walter lippmann was a founding member of the CFR in 1919, with many of the same people that him write woodrow wilson's fourteen points( it was a group called 'the inquiry' if my memory serves me right). He was a very influential journalist, and coined the phrase 'manufactured consent.' he contributed this thesis of manufactured consent to the MPS of which he was a member for 20 yrs.

Fast forward to today. The Lew Rockwell (rothbardians) maintain that there was a schism btwn them and the MPS. Mises was never very comfortable with some of the people...too interventionist or compromising for his like. It doesnt take long reading LRC to get a feel for their hate of heritage et al. They maintain that what we call neocons today co-opted the MPS. Whether their hate is sincere i know not, but that is what they print.

Also, reading more of rothbard's stateless ideas gave more context to what rp said in the motorhome diaries. He means it. Rothbardians know that in order to get to a staeless society we have hit reverse on the continuum and pass thru constitutionalism to get there. See rothbard memo 'what is to be done.'. Gradualism

They (foundations/institutes) certainly breed like crazy and inter-pollinate - "incestuous" as you put it is probably the best applicable term. Fascinating aspect is they all operate tax free and don't have to reveal who their donors are. From what I can tell less than 200 people fund the vast majority of them in one form or another (like funding one foundation that funds multiple others)....but its a big black box and very difficult to track back other than key people that are board members or members in general.

Definitely requires some time and research to get a basic picture.

Good place for the Fed owners to put some of that money they print up. When you think about the fact, that they can create any amount of money and give it to anyone they wish, I wouldn't be suprised to find out they were behind most or all these foundations. Talk about the power of the printing press, digital or otherwise.

Amen brother!!! Of course the sole remaining threat to their oligarchy is the people rising up and utilizing their last remaining Constitutional thread (franchise to vote) and taking back Congress....which then takes back their Constitutional mandate to control money....which then kicks the bankers out. I imagine they would pull out all the stops if any politician even had a hint of success in that directions....

I hope Jesus will intervene soon....

[AGStackercaptain of 100]

"But he also says he wants to sell off our gold and land to satisfy the debt. What did it cost them to loan us this debt?"

I never heard him say to sell off land but he did say the gold. He simply was saying sell the gold as opposed to increasing the debt. I think Paul knows Fort Knox is empty and was essentially trying to call their bluff. Paul knows as the Fed continues to destroy the currency gold will increase in value.

He was simply offering up an alternative solution to debasing the currency.

He also says that the 2 trillion we owe the Fed we should simply not pay them because we actually pay them money to use their stupid FRNs.

[JasonI am a nobody!]

"But he also says he wants to sell off our gold and land to satisfy the debt. What did it cost them to loan us this debt?"

I never heard him say to sell off land but he did say the gold. He simply was saying sell the gold as opposed to increasing the debt. I think Paul knows Fort Knox is empty and was essentially trying to call their bluff. Paul knows as the Fed continues to destroy the currency gold will increase in value.

He was simply offering up an alternative solution to debasing the currency.

He also says that the 2 trillion we owe the Fed we should simply not pay them because we actually pay them money to use their stupid FRNs.

Google - "Ron Paul sell federal lands"

So we'll default on the Federal Reserve but pay off China and Russia with our gold and lands???

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Here's somebody else that did a bit of a deep research dive on some foundations -

Koch Industries denies funding tea parties, but official filings say otherwise
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/koch-i ... eedomworks

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Cato Institute Is Caught in a Rift Over Its Direction
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/ca ... ml?_r=2&hp

[linj2flycaptain of 1,000]

Yea, LRC is salivating over the Cato/Koch blood and carnage right now. Apparently, the Kochs (or someone over at Cato) stole Rothbard's shares in the organization back in the 80's. Here's a link to all the Koch/Cato drama going on...

http://www.underpenaltyofcatapult.com/539/koch-vs-cato-bibliography

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Yea, LRC is salivating over the Cato/Koch blood and carnage right now. Apparently, the Kochs (or someone over at Cato) stole Rothbard's shares in the organization back in the 80's. Here's a link to all the Koch/Cato drama going on...

http://www.underpenaltyofcatapult.com/539/koch-vs-cato-bibliography

Thank you very much for the very informative link - here's a snipit from one of the links at the site...

The battle for control over a prominent libertarian organization in Washington has cast a spotlight on its highly unusual structure, which allows the nonprofit research institution to be controlled by shareholders.

The Cato Institute, one of the largest think tanks in Washington, is governed by four people, each with a 25 percent stake in the organization. That stake can be bought and sold for cash under an arrangement, only legal in a handful of states, that is frowned upon by the Internal Revenue Service.

Charles and David Koch, billionaire brothers who own a large energy conglomerate, filed suit on Thursday seeking an option to increase their 50 percent stake in Cato, a large research organization that espouses free-market economics and limited government.

Although they don’t receive dividends like shareholders of a for-profit company, the structure gives the Koch brothers power to appoint half of Cato’s board. In most nonprofits, new directors are elected by the organization’s membership or the current board members.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

...very ironic that a libertarian organization espousing near anarchy....is seeking government to settle the dispute (rather than the "free" market approach)...

[linj2flycaptain of 1,000]

yes...one of many reasons why they are called Big-L libertarians...

It is curious that a non-profit has shareholders....how common...or uncommon, is that??

[linj2flycaptain of 1,000]

Interesting connections here....Hunstman's business partner donates to Endorse Liberty....

[url]http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/mark-ames-why-is-ron-paul’s-superpac-headquartered-in-mitt-romney’s-backyard.html[/url]

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Interesting connections here....Hunstman's business partner donates to Endorse Liberty....

[url]http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/mark-ames-why-is-ron-paul’s-superpac-headquartered-in-mitt-romney’s-backyard.html[/url]

Yes that is a very interesting little tidbit....thank you very much for sharing!!!

[linj2flycaptain of 1,000]

Video worth watching. It is a pro-paul video. It illustrates the connections between RP and the ideas of Rothbard, Mises et al, and his practical and rhetorical use of the constitution to achieve a state of anarchism...



I agree with much of RP's message, but think it wise to sort out the 'philosophies of men' from 'scripture.'

Most are familiar with this passage...

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the alaws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

We all believe in befriending the constitution, and while RP has shown great integrity to this oath of office, I must ask:

Are RP's overarching philosophies illustrated above 'less than this?'

I have concluded in the affirmative. I have not given up on the constitution. I believe that a moral society is the underpinning of the success in of the constitution. If it has failed, it is b/c of our own individual and collective evil. Only angels can be successful in a stateless society....this is b/c they have chosen to follow the laws of the one true God, but we are still in a fallen state, and even as saints, we struggle between the following the natural man vs the enticings of the holy spirit.

John Adams:

we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

If avarice, ambition, revenge and gallantry can break through the strongest cords of the constitution, what we will have with no constitution (i.e. a stateless society), since these characteristics will still be present. Only morality/religion (cleansing hearts) can bridle these passions, but our society has rejected that. However, even in John Adam's more 'pious' days, this was still a concern.

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Video worth watching. It is a pro-paul video. It illustrates the connections between RP and the ideas of Rothbard, Mises et al, and his practical and rhetorical use of the constitution to achieve a state of anarchism...



I agree with much of RP's message, but think it wise to sort out the 'philosophies of men' from 'scripture.'

Most are familiar with this passage...

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the alaws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

We all believe in befriending the constitution, and while RP has shown great integrity to this oath of office, I must ask:

Are RP's overarching philosophies illustrated above 'less than this?'

I have concluded in the affirmative. I have not given up on the constitution. I believe that a moral society is the underpinning of the success in of the constitution. If it has failed, it is b/c of our own individual and collective evil. Only angels can be successful in a stateless society....this is b/c they have chosen to follow the laws of the one true God, but we are still in a fallen state, and even as saints, we struggle between the following the natural man vs the enticings of the holy spirit.

John Adams:

we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

If avarice, ambition, revenge and gallantry can break through the strongest cords of the constitution, what we will have with no constitution (i.e. a stateless society), since these characteristics will still be present. Only morality/religion (cleansing hearts) can bridle these passions, but our society has rejected that. However, even in John Adam's more 'pious' days, this was still a concern.

Awesome video find there linj2fly....thank you very much for sharing!!!

Here's another -



...and the source -
http://vforvoluntary.com/ron-paul/

Appreciate your insights as well. You eloquently state the facts - Ron Paul and so many others of the Libertarian movement claim to support the Constitution all while scoffing at its ability to control the avarice of the people and pointing to government as the root cause of the problem rather than correctly identifying the moral and religious characteristics of the people. Instead they follow the doctrine of Korihor in allowing a man to do whatsoever he would like as long as he "doesn't hurt or harm another"....and that the government has no business involving themselves as such. This should be no surprise though considering the origination of the libertarian doctrine and the frequent disputes over all of its artifacts when it comes to thoughts of implementation.

...these (Austrian) ideas are severely limited, and are unsuitable for large scale control fraud, that occurs- organically- in any late stage capitalist economy.

The take away is that capitalism is intrinsically unstable. It operates in boom or bust cycles, and as the magnitude of these cycles increases, the repercussions change - becoming much more severe, and the most effective type of corrective action changes as well. When these cycles get too large, as they are now, they cannot be left to the theories of “creative destruction” as means of self correction.

Suggesting that problems of this scale are caused solely by government intervention shows a lack of understanding for the intrinsic (and entirely factual) instabilities of capitalism, and the effects these instabilities have on the non participant- who, last time I checked, had rights too.

As has been the case for nearly 300 years, capitalism needs, and will always need, corrective feedback loops initiated from someone other than the profit seekers.

- rhare

Luckily we have the correct answers...

Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto thy seed, and them who shall be numbered among thy seed, forever, for the land of their inheritance; for it is a choice land, saith God unto me, above all other lands, wherefore I will have all men that dwell thereon that they shall worship me, saith God.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/10?lang=eng

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Libertarianism strikes me as if someone (let's call her "Ayn Rand") sat down to create the Un-Communism. Thus:

Communism Libertarianism
Property is theft Property is sacred
Totalitarianism Any government is bad
Capitalists are baby-eating villains Capitalists are noble Nietzchean heroes
Workers should rule Worker activism is evil
The poor are oppressed The poor are pampered good-for-nothings

Does this sound exaggerated? Let's listen to Murray Rothbard:

We contend here, however, that the model of government is akin, not to the business firm, but to the criminal organization, and indeed that the State is the organization of robbery systematized and writ large.

Or here's Lew Rockwell on Rothbard (emphasis mine):

He was also the architect of the body of thought known around the world as libertarianism. This radically anti-state political philosophy unites free-market economics, a no-exceptions attachment to private property rights, a profound concern for human liberty, and a love of peace, with the conclusion that society should be completely free to develop absent any interference from the state, which can and should be eliminated.

Thomas DiLorenzo on worker activism: "[L]abor unions [pursue] policies which impede the very institutions of capitalism that are the cause of their own prosperity." Or Ludwig von Mises: "What is today euphemistically called the right to strike is in fact the right of striking workers, by recourse to violence, to prevent people who want to work from working." (Employer violence is apparently acceptable.) The Libertarian Party platform explains that workers have no right to protest drug tests, and supports the return of child labor.

On Nietzsche, as one of my correspondents puts it, some libertarians love Nietzsche; others have read him. (Though I would respond that some people idolize executives; others have worked for them.) Nonetheless, I think the Nietzschean atmosphere of burning rejection of conventional morality, exaltation of the will to power, and scorn for womanish Christian compassion for the masses, is part of the roots of libertarianism. It's unmistakable in Ayn Rand.

The more important point, however, is that the capitalist is the über-villain for communists, and a glorious hero for libertarians; that property is "theft" for the communists, and a "natural right" for libertarians. These dovetail a little too closely for coincidence. It's natural enough, when a basic element of society is attacked as an evil, for its defenders to counter-attack by elevating it into a principle.

As we should have learned from the history of communism and fascism, however, contradiction is no guarantee of truth; it can lead one into an opposite error instead. And many who rejected communism nonetheless remained zealots. People who leave one ideological extreme usually end up at the other, either quickly (David Horowitz) or slowly (Mario Vargas Llosa). If you're the sort of person who likes absolutes, you want them even if all your other convictions change.

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

My main problem with "Atlas Shrugged" is that Rand seems to think the "productive" members of society are the wealthy elite who produce rather than leeching off the labors of others. It seems Rand's assumption is that it's the productive wealthy that are being leeched off of.

She doesn't seem to realize that these "productive" people she idolizes are equally guilty of either prospering off the labor of those beneath them, or claiming the natural resources of large areas as their own and profiting off exploiting them.

You want to see a real Atlas Shrugged, check out if everyone who actually knew how to work and produce things decided to take off and leave all Rand's "productive" rich people holding the bag.

[linj2flycaptain of 1,000]

Thanks for finding the source, Jason...both good videos.

Who are you quoting here...

..these (Austrian) ideas are severely limited, and are unsuitable for large scale control fraud, that occurs- organically- in any late stage capitalist economy.

The take away is that capitalism is intrinsically unstable. It operates in boom or bust cycles, and as the magnitude of these cycles increases, the repercussions change - becoming much more severe, and the most effective type of corrective action changes as well. When these cycles get too large, as they are now, they cannot be left to the theories of “creative destruction” as means of self correction.

Suggesting that problems of this scale are caused solely by government intervention shows a lack of understanding for the intrinsic (and entirely factual) instabilities of capitalism, and the effects these instabilities have on the non participant- who, last time I checked, had rights too.

As has been the case for nearly 300 years, capitalism needs, and will always need, corrective feedback loops initiated from someone other than the profit seekers.

[2BFreecaptain of 100]

My main problem with "Atlas Shrugged" is that Rand seems to think the "productive" members of society are the wealthy elite who produce rather than leeching off the labors of others. It seems Rand's assumption is that it's the productive wealthy that are being leeched off of.

She doesn't seem to realize that these "productive" people she idolizes are equally guilty of either prospering off the labor of those beneath them, or claiming the natural resources of large areas as their own and profiting off exploiting them.

You want to see a real Atlas Shrugged, check out if everyone who actually knew how to work and produce things decided to take off and leave all Rand's "productive" rich people holding the bag.

The "main problem" you put forth is not what Rand "seems to think" but an erroneous interpretation of what she is attempting to communicate through the 1074 pages if one can survive the literary marathon. She is trying to show how the "productive" can be preyed upon by the "unproductive" through the monopoly of force which only the "government" has been granted by the "productive". She is illustrating the dichotomy of the individual and the collective and how the "individual" is the only thing that can combat the unproductive "collectivist". She also makes a point that the so called "wealthy elites" are not people that sit in big offices with elaborate furnishings but are functional capable people that have built their fortunes from the ground up and are being pillaged by "bureaucrats" that see themselves as elites and entitled to the spoils from their looting of the productive individualists. Of course, she does make a point that some of the "underlings" believe in the "collectivist" concepts but most of the key people were similar in their beliefs as their bosses and seem to be quitting and disappearing as eventually the bosses did. Your last statement is exactly what Rand illustrates if you had actually read the whole book. The "productive individual" whether the owner or an employee can bring to their knees the "collectivist bureaucrat" by just not producing anymore. I would also recommend Rand's "The Fountainhead" which set me personally on this road when I was in my teens. Who is John Galt?...

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

Regardless of what the message is, I find it a bit strange that one of the "productive" people who was invited to join the utopian society was an oil tycoon. Nothing against people developing the resources on their property, but how exactly does being lucky enough to own oil fields make a person more naturally productive than someone else?

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Thanks for finding the source, Jason...both good videos.

Who are you quoting here...

..these (Austrian) ideas are severely limited, and are unsuitable for large scale control fraud, that occurs- organically- in any late stage capitalist economy.

The take away is that capitalism is intrinsically unstable. It operates in boom or bust cycles, and as the magnitude of these cycles increases, the repercussions change - becoming much more severe, and the most effective type of corrective action changes as well. When these cycles get too large, as they are now, they cannot be left to the theories of “creative destruction” as means of self correction.

Suggesting that problems of this scale are caused solely by government intervention shows a lack of understanding for the intrinsic (and entirely factual) instabilities of capitalism, and the effects these instabilities have on the non participant- who, last time I checked, had rights too.

As has been the case for nearly 300 years, capitalism needs, and will always need, corrective feedback loops initiated from someone other than the profit seekers.

an anonymous blogger who I think nailed it....I would have posted a link but would have been a distraction away from the concept presented.....put it in quotes because its not mine.