The Ron Paul Phenomenon, Part 1: Evaluating the Message

Strunk and White said it best..."omit needless words."

For Geraldine Perry, those should be all the words following paragraph seven.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

The article is worth a skim, as any article talking about Ron Paul on the left is.

But basically, the author is confused.

Her best point comes early in the article:

This “phenomenon” in its larger sense carries the very real potential for developing into a viable third party, particularly if it can recombine with other disaffected portions of the populace. Therefore, and whatever our own political persuasion, it is perhaps in our own best interests if we use this brief respite from campaign season mania to engage ourselves in a sincere effort to understand, as objectively as possible, the “Ron Paul Phenomenon” in all its facets.

She unfortunately then goes on to completely confuse and misunderstand RP and the Constitution's position on money.

Her arguments in support of a legal tender power for the federal government are not supported by the meaning of the constitution.

She conflates "coin" with print or create as in paper currency. The meaning of coin as it relates to money has one meaning, create metallic money stamped with a design. The drafters of the constitution knew about paper money if they wanted to allow the printing of paper money they would not have used "coin".

The same with "legal tender" there is no power in the constitution to create a monopoly on money. In fact the wording of the constitution presupposes a definition for the dollar commonly known to the then current inhabitants of America. The dollar was the Spanish silver dollar, which is why the phrase in Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 5 says :

regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standards of Weights and Measures

why regulate the value of foreign coin if it was outlawed by the constitution?
Why set standard weights and measures for foreign coin if it was outlawed?
Because the Constitution does not outlaw competing money.
The constitution only "ALLOWS" the fed gov to coin money.

This person is just another manipulator of words to suit her own agenda.

She misses the point of having actual coins of gold and silver circulating, as being a way for Americans to be free from government manipulation of the money. This is why FDR outlawed gold coin ownership in the illegal executive order and laws of 1933. This is why the government then decreed the value of gold in dollars was $35 / TR OZ immediately after the fed gov seized gold coins ( going up from $20/TR OZ).

She then goes on with the "implied" powers argument. If the plain words do not limit the fed gov, and there are some mysterious implied powers, there is NO LIMITS imposed by the constitution by logical progression. We are then "RULED" by the seeming legitimacy of the people then in control of the government and they are not bound by any restrictions. If we "read between the lines" we see nothing, which means anything is allowed.

As I said just another dishonest word manipulator.

Her argument against competing currencies is full of holes also. If a competing currency has no value in a free market then it will disappear by the fact no one will want it.
She is a statist who believes that government is the answer, we just have to have the "right laws" and the "right people" in office. We have 230 years of experience showing that this idea is a foul lie told to us by statist propaganda. The fact is government creates the problems we face by its existence and then tries to paper over the problems with ineffectual decrees called "laws" as a solution to the problems it creates.

She then descends into a spinning hell of circular reasoning. The government has to have monopoly power over money because private minters might make a profit, they might even make excess profits.
Again this presupposes some force ( monopoly privilege granted by government perhaps?) that would make people accept this private coin in the face of its being overvalued in a free market.

The "Solution" to money manipulation is to trust the government that has manipulated money for 230 years. RIGHT, hows that going to work?

She would give the power for a real legal tender fiat currency to the government that has shown how it REALLY serves our interest. ( He said dripping with scorn and sarcasm.) Instead some some bogus implied powers argument.

discussion, thanks for posting.

I really don't like the condescending tone right from the beginning, I don't like anyone who calls RP supporters "disaffected," and I take issue with these criticisms:

"The subject of taxation is irrevocably tied to money creation, and here, too, Paul misses the mark, or at least conflates issues...Paul is far from alone in his misunderstanding of what the Constitution actually says..."

And the final two paragraphs:
"Paul’s recent, controversial earmark vote this past February [16] is only one example of philosophical inconsistency with respect to his voting record. But far more problematic is the extremely unfortunate misinterpretation of the Constitution itself, because this leads to false solutions -- and not just behavior that is inconsistent with campaign promises. One explanation for all this may in fact be that Ron Paul, like the rest of us, is merely a product of his environment.

But far more important, and more to the point, is that each of us is charged with the very serious responsibility to carefully evaluate the messages our leaders articulate. Whenever we as individuals fail to diligently execute that responsibility, none of us comes out a winner -- not even Ron Paul."

http://www.thetwofacesofmoney.com/index.php/Site/TheEncroach...