Comment: Sit back, I'm about to post a mega comment!

(See in situ)


Sit back, I'm about to post a mega comment!

Preface: This is recent correspondence between myself and a friend. It is very similar, and equally as frustrating as your situtation. Lord knows I tried, but I think pride gets in their way, so they refuse to see, and then resort to baseless accusations. One thing is for sure, they do not understand economics...

Note: These are emails, so you have to read them from the bottom up to get the order correct.

HIM-
You know its really hard to address this without saying something that could potentially damage our relationship, but I will try.

Its obvious to me you have bought the libertarian philosophy and rhetoric wholesale. I keep challenging you using things that have actually happened and you just bounce back with stuff like "guy x said this". That's fine, sometimes they are interesting perspectives, but that doesn't mean they are right, or realistic.

I really should just dismiss a lot of what you have said based on your counters to the civil rights and slavery issues. In the Ron Paul south was right video, he doesn't directly say the south was right for wanting to keep slavery, but if you watch it until the end, he does say states should have the right to make important decisions on important issues. He had been talking about slavery the entire time up until that point, so even though he didn't flat out say slavery was a states rights issue, if you listen to the video and see how he cleverly made justifications for his perspective on the civil war, the only conclusion one can make from that "states rights" line was that he was in fact talking about issues such as slavery. He was running for president, he knew he couldnt make that claim flat out, he had to be clever about it. If you dont think he does that kind of stuff, then explain why he is running as a republican.

On civil rights.. there's a few things. Brown vs board was a supreme court case. The supreme court gets to decide what is unconstitutional and what isnt, not congressmen who talk about the issues 40 years after the fact.. but that isn't even he real issue in that argument. The other part of that argument is that people like Ron Paul believe the government making sure people's rights don't get infringed upon on private property is a bad thing, just because it is private property. Notice how the fact that people who followed the Jim crow laws were being racist does not come into the conversation. It got turned into a battle of semantics and government intervention on property. Racism isnt addressed, cuz apparently that isn't important. Protecting business property rights supersedes individual rights and liberties in that argument.

That is essentially my beef with a lot of libertarian arguments. For a philosophy that is principled on individual rights, its followers go to great lengths to justify injustices and policies that would benefit a few at the expense of many. Ron Paul and his son will play games of semantics and throw around the word "unconstitutional" and a lot of people look past instances of racism and inequality because the argument might sound a little convincing. The plain and simple truth is a lot of libertarian ideas were conceived by the rich to benefit their own kind, and they were clever enough to package and market these ideas in a way that would appeal to groups that wouldnt necessarily benefit from them.

Example: on minimum wage-- you really think people would survive making two or three dollars an hour in this country? They would have to work most of their days away just to be able to afford a few gallons of gas, forget about putting food on the table or sending their kids to private school. Oh wait, what's the other option, home schooling? When are people going to find the time to do that?

I suppose that, theoretically, if people are willing to work for peanuts, that there would be more jobs to go around, but you'd still have an issue of people working jobs that are well below their skill level, and they would ultimately feel they aren't getting the compensation they deserve. What do you think those people are gonna do? Suck it up? Maybe in a totalitarian regime, sure.

Anyway, I could go on, and I might some other time, but I have a feeling I would be wasting my time, just for the simple fact that you keep defending Ron Paul in even the sketchiest situations. If you admitted that maybe he really is wrong on a couple of things, I might entertain this convo better, but the responses I usually get on his questionable ideas are some weird drawn out justifications on property and yadda yadda. If you can accept that not all government intervention is bad, when it comes to things like the economy and education, then we can talk about improving those programs and systems. The bottom line is that I will never agree that getting rid of those things entirely would be in everyone's best interest, but I am definitely open to conversations on how they could be improved.

A few quick things and I'm out: I did mess up by saying article 10 of the constitution. I was thinking off the too of my head. I meant article 5. The one where the writers recognized where the government would need to adapt over time.

The other thing is I do agree with some of the stuff you talked about. The money system is fucked, you won't hear me argue with young here. I'm not trying to be contrarian to all your arguments, there are just a few things i feel strongly about because of my personal experiences in life, and because I am aware of how opportunistic people would be if certain restrictions were lifted.

Gotta go!

ME-
I spent a very long time putting this together. There is quite a bit of information contained herein, so first and foremost, I need some assurance that you are going to actually read the words I've written, watch the videos I've posted, and read the texts that I've presented in these e-mails, because if you do not, then I am wasting my time, and this is all for naught.

Now that is out of the way...

I'm not interested in what you feel may be right, I'm interested in letting the facts speak for themselves.
These are not just some theories that I read in a book, they are the beliefs of many of the greatest intellectual philosophers throughout history, including the founders of this country. You think this is too radical for modern day America, but a society based on individual liberty is a NEW idea, and tyranny is OLD. Tyranny is the oldest of all forms of government, and it comes in many flavors and names, including democracy.

The difference between liberty and socialism, is that one treats people as inviolate individuals, and the other treats people as a collective.
In liberty, you own your life, and in socialism the arbitrary people of government own your life.
In liberty, you have property rights, and in socialism you do not, because the State owns all property, and you are only given privilege via titles to use it.

I don't feel it necessary to point out the many ways in which our society operates in the former to open your eyes to the reality of the USSA?
An over-sized and overreaching government HAS ALREADY set us back as a people. We need to move forward towards liberty once again in order to correct our problems.

You said you think libertarianism is too optimistic, but it is, in fact, quite the opposite. I'm under no illusions, and I fully realize that the kind of government that I want would NOT be some kind of utopia. My friend, I am anything but naive. I recognize that there is injustice in the world, know there is no way to ever rid the world of it, and understand that to try to do so only creates even more injustice. Libertarians know these things, accept it, and instead concentrate on only the areas where there actually can be equality. We CAN come together and agree to universally protect the lives, liberty, and property of each and every individual, because THAT is why governments are instituted among men. Libertarian philosophy isn't calling for the use of the coercive force of government to bring about a certain ideal, it is simply treating people fair and equal the only way possible. It is underscored by a lack of government force for any other purpose, except in the protection of life, liberty, and property. The basic tenet of libertarianism is adherence to the NAP(non-aggression principle), and respect for the rights of each individual.
NAP by Stefan Molyneux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8TI-pm0m2o
I like that video by Stefan, but it fails to mention the fact that violence IS justified when used in self defense.
The following explanation by Ayn Rand does address the proper use of violence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTOxelKRBGI

...And for your amusement, I present to you Larken Rose- You'll love this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A

The founders were classical liberals, as am I, only today we call it libertarian.
"I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet servitude of tyranny"- Thomas Jefferson

"Every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add… artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society -- the farmers, mechanics, and laborers -- who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government."- Andrew Jackson

Unfortunately, as Hayek points out in his book, some people in France during the 1700's started to equate liberty & freedom with the requirement to have a certain amount of material wealth to provide for their welfare. They stated that you cannot have liberty without freedom from poverty, but what they failed to grasp is that in order to provide for what they wanted, they had to use force to accomplish it, and necessarily step on the rights of others. The disease and immorality of liberal socialism spread from there.

Never forget the sole reason for why immigrants flocked here from all over the world, for liberty, and freedom from oppression.

Now, to address your examples of federal student aid, minimum wage laws, open borders for full on free trade, and tax on overseas investments.

1)Federal student aid:
Did you not read my last e-mail, or watch the videos? I'm not going to go over this one again.

2)Minimum wage laws:
Milton Friedman on minimum wage laws: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk
Walter E. Williams, and Thomas Sowell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jv1Zae0sgo
Tom Woods: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-LJ3wZjD4I *Tom Woods has TONS of great videos. I HIGHLY recommend him*
Also, if you want expanded information on this subject there are some great lectures on youtube, but some are quite lengthy.

We should NOT have minimum wage laws, because that is counterproductive, and many people who would otherwise be working end up not employed at all, or on welfare. Trust me, it's better for EVERYONE to have people working, than subsiding on government handouts.

Let me ask you a question, why is it that we need to keep raising minimum wage anyway? Isn't that a result of inflation?
Doesn't inflation mostly hurt the poor with little to spend, and the elderly on fixed incomes?! Why would government do-gooders hurt ordinary people like that?

If we had true free market capitalism, and sound money, the money in peoples pockets would retain its value, and actually increase in value over time as efficiency upgrades to production output afford. ...but we couldn't let people have that now can we? There's too much to gain for the bankers to have the ability to counterfeit our money, and tax our labor. Don't worry though, it's all for your benefit. /sarcasm

The BEST thing we can do for the working folks of this country is to abolish the central bank, and get constitutional money(Article 1, section 10) back into the hands of the people, and to end the servitude of taxation on our labor. It is absolutely vital to understand the relationship between sound money and liberty in order to not live in servitude.

3) Plutocracy:
The following are a few choice quotes by men who knew how insidious paper currency was. Know that I can find many quotes of this nature throughout all of history, from ancient Greece and Rome, to even Jesus of Nazareth. This is the eternal struggle:

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -Thomas Jefferson, in condemnation of the first central bank of the U.S. This was before, as president, Jefferson let the 20yr charter run out.

In Talking of the second central bank of the U.S., Andrew Jackson had the following to say before he was able to abolish it:
"The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it."-Andrew Jackson

"I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country'-Andrew Jackson

"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out."- Andrew Jackson

"Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves."- Norm Franz

And now for a quote from one of the villains:
"Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who makes the laws." -Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Wake up! WE HAVE A PLUTOCRACY! It is a plutocracy of/by/for the BANKERS! Who got bailed out in 2008? WHY?
If you put everything in context of money & banking, or more precisely who controls the money & banking, and the issuance of paper money through central banking, then history starts to make much more sense. The whole push for one world government is to control the issuance of a one world currency. THAT is the ultimate goal of the elite. Guess which countries are getting new central banks, or have had new central banks installed? Guess which country doesn't have a Rothschild controlled central bank?

Here is one of the videos that set me on my journey for the truth early on. I can't tell you just how invaluable this one is.
On the Federal Reserve: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbXIoB6di5Q
*G. Edward Griffin has many other great video presentations, as well. I highly recommend his books and videos*

I realize the quality of the video could be better, but understand this, the words this man speaks are the truth: http://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-real-shocker-gold-di...

The story of your enslavement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
4) Free Trade
I don't think it is even debatable at this point that tariffs to provide economic protection for sectors of our economy are, in fact, hurting us, as it only succeeds in fleecing the consumer to the benefit of that particular industry. Free trade with other nations is preferrable to instigating trade wars. Free trade is good for the consumer, and protectionist policies are bad for the consumer. Economic protectionism played a significant role in lengthening the great depression, and was a major contributing factor for the cause of the civil war.

Read the wise words of Bastiat on this subject: http://mises.org/daily/6257/The-Two-Hatchets
Ron Paul on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8EUT8I5Og0
John Stossel & Guests: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO2-XRQ4r-0
Peter Schiff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IyQh1D_t2Y
*Again, there are more videos discussing this topic on youtube, including some more detailed, but lenghty lectures*

You said, "Considering the amount of jobs that have been lost to outsourcing in our current managed trade climate, do you really think that these policies are going to help the majority of Americans? They will most definitely benefit the ones with the means to make the investments in opportunities overseas, but the laborers would now be competing against foreigners who work for wages ten times less than the average wages here. Look at the chart on this site for reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/average-cost-factor...
If I was a business owner, and we had a libertarian administration, I would literally have no incentive to manufacture here for anything more than $2 per hour per worker."

Ron Paul on the WTO(The managed trade climate you mentioned): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmGcaOkRsTU

I have a reality check: WE ARE competing with foreign labor now, and we have always been competing with foreign labor. Jobs are going to continue to be lost to outsourcing until we make it more friendly to produce things here again. We need less regulation, and less onerous taxation to attract them back to this country.This is a wake-up call to all Americans who think we can continue to live high on the hog forever. We need to produce things again so we can start to close our trade deficit. We need to export more than just our inflation.

Speaking of exporting our inflation, what happens when the dollar loses its status as the worlds reserve currency and nobody needs to use the petro-dollar to purchase oil? It IS already happening! What happens to the purchasing power of the dollar when all those dollars held abroad come back home, and we need to monetize our debt and deficit because noone will buy our bonds?

Our standard of living is on the verge of being drastically reduced here in this nation. We have been the beneficiary of an economic system that has served us well, and has allowed us to live beyond our means on debt. Immorally, we have protected the hegemony of the almighty petro-dollar with our military might. Like Colonel Qaddafi of Libya, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and now the leaders of Iran, we bomb(or threaten to) those that challenge the status of the dollar. Is that really a moral thing to do? Are not the people of other countries as entitled to the jobs and wealth that we have grown accustomed to? Our balls are pegged to the wall, for we are a debtor nation, and large companies that employ people see the writing on the wall and are fleeing for the hills. The majority of Americans are going to get blindsided by this reality when it happens, because our "leaders" are not being forthcoming with us about the seriousness of the issue.

5)Tax on overseas investments:
What gives someone the right, or the moral authority? Why in the world would you punish someone for doing what is in their own best interest? As a byproduct of their own success they help other people. Isn't that a good thing? Authoritarians need to just stop already.

6)Dr. Ron Paul, The Civil War, and The Civil Rights Act:
Here is what you've had to say on this:
"What kind of man would stand behind the principle that the government should only exist to protect people's rights, then go on to say "the south was right" when talking about the civil war? The south wanted to keep exploiting an entire race... just saying. http://newsone.com/1812845/ron-paul-made-south-was-right-civ...

Now about Mr. Paul and the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act... it's a huge contradiction, no way around it. He makes the argument that the states should have been able to make the decision to keep slaves or not. If keeping people as slaves isn't infringing on other people's rights, then I don't know what is. The government should exist to protect people's rights, and IMO, ending slavery was long overdue. That should have not been an issue left up to the states, plain and simple. On the civil rights act, Paul argues against it, saying the government shouldn't have the right to essentially spy on individuals and private businesses to end the problems that led up to the civil rights movement. Here's where the silly optimism argument comes up again: if these folks could have been trusted to honor minorities' civil rights in the first place, there never would have been a movement. You can't just create an act that adresses the issues of segregation and civil rights and not have any measures to enforce it. So yes, Mr. Paul is way off on those issues."

Civil War
Admittedly, this is a difficult topic to address, not for my lack of understanding it, but because of a general lack of understanding on the behalf of other people, an unwillingness to concede to facts, and the high emotional significance it imparts. I have to teach a history lesson in order to settle this matter, and I'm not exactly keen to the idea, but I will do it anyway, because I must. What is common knowledge, and has been taught in high school about this topic isn't quite the way that things should have been recorded in our school history books, but nonetheless, the victors are always the ones to write it. The importance of certain aspects have altogether been neglected by the teachers in our public schools, and those that write the books for the young minds of our children have skewed the actual account of what happened to suit their needs. In reference to teachers, I think it's mostly due to ignorance, laziness, and an unwillingness to properly address it. In reference to those who write the books for our school curriculum, there are ulterior motives to drawing attention away from certain aspects of this struggle. Also, the tendency to simplify things to the lowest common demoninator has not done justice to general understanding. A reluctance on my part to discuss this topic is solely due to these elements. This is not revisionist history, it IS history, but nothing can ever take away from the evils of slavery.

I found an excellent write-up on this topic by Lew Rockwell that you must read in order to better understand the civil war issue: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html

My own opinion on the civil war is this, that both the North and South were wrong, for different reasons, and I place blame on the monied interests of each side for the fault. Still, can anyone argue that the loss of life to the tune of over 600,00 is not a tragic result, and should have been avoided?

If the Consitution had been applicable to ALL people from the formation of the Republic, then slavery would not have been an issue, but that does not mean that the principles of the Constitution and Declaration are in any way null, or void. They were not perfect men, and I fault the founders. First, I fault them for acquiescing to monied interests in order to bring the Republic together, and second, for bigotry. There is never a justification for slavery, and they should have held true to the meaning of their written words. They were hypocrits.

You said, "That should have not been an issue left up to the states", and I couldn't agree with you more, but let's not forget that the federal government played an instrumental role in the institution of slavery. For example: Who was charged with the enactment, and enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act? The federal government! And who used the argument of states rights to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act? The northern states! States Rights works both ways.

In reference to the newsone.com video:
I fail to see where Ron Paul ever advocates for slavery. He did NOT, as you say, "make the argument that the states should have been able to make the decision to keep slaves or not." He said no such thing! You contrived that meaning for yourself. He said that slavery was an important issue, but NOT the only issue. There is more to this story than you think.

There were 11 other countries in this hemisphere that had slavery, and were able to do away with it without going to war, and causing over 600,000 deaths. He's preaching AGAINST WAR, not preaching FOR slavery. He gives an example of one of the ways that at least one of these other 11 countries was able to solve the problem of institutionalized slavery, and do it peacefully. Interestingly enough, purchasing the freedom of slaves was a tactic that was used in Great Britain, as well. Now knowing that there were other ways to abolish slavery WITHOUT the catastrpohy of war, that must signify that the real cause of the civil war was due to something else altogether, and slavery was used as the moral justification(when expedient) to continue the war, and subdue the confederacy.

""My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."- Abraham Lincoln. And yes, this is a real quote.

At the founding of this country there was a great debate concerning the size, scope, and power of the federal government. There were those, such as hamilton, who wanted a strong federal government, and those, such as Jefferson, who wanted decentralized power. Make no mistake about it, this is a really significant issue in the world of those that aspire to make law, and to those that have interests outside of doing good for the common man; These are the ones who are in the business of twisting government as a means to their own ends. Lincoln and his ilk were for consolidation of power, protectionist policies, subsidies, and a central banking system. You can look up some of Lincoln's speaches as a senator for confirmation. The chief object of Lincoln was to preserve the Union so he could continue to exploit the southern states with an excessive set of tariffs, but he couldn't openly use this as justification, or as a rallying cry.

You may not concede to this, but slavery was on its way out. Large segments of the American people were openly hostile towards it, and this tends to change things fast. Much like the current issue of gay marriage, of which we will eventually have equality of throughout all the states, the abolishment of slavery would have occured in a natural way, and sooner than you may think it would have. The morality of the people was changing, and with a change in morality comes a change in laws. Sure, it would have taken longer in the southern states to achieve freedom for the slaves, but like gay marriage, the sentiment of the population as a whole was headed in that direction. Aside from the obvious telltale signs of this change in sentiment from the people of the North, there were even clauses in the confederate constitution that give credence to my assertion that the morality of slavery was under serious fire. It would have, and could have happened without the need of a costly war to abolish it. That doesn't mean that everything was going to be magically better all of the sudden if left to its natural course, it wasn't magically better even with the war, but did over 600,000 people need to die to force it? And not that you've personally said this, but I think it's quite foolish for anyone to say that slavery would have endured to this day.

We must accept the fact that not everyone who fought on behalf of the South fought for the cause of slavery. Our history books aren't going to say that, of course. People had many reasons to disolve their allegiance, but I will not deny that bigotry, and slavery was, in fact, a primary one.
I can give no apologies for those people.

"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained." -Robert E. Lee, General of the Confederate army.

"The war... was an unnecesary condition of affairs, and might have been avoided if forebearance and wisdom had been practiced on both sides."- Robert E. Lee

*I can't find the particular quote, but Lee had said something to the effect that the south would have won the war if they had set free their slaves six months earlier.*

So now let's travel to a moment in history, after the Emancipation Proclaimation freed SOME of the slaves during the war(in the rebellious south only, of course), after the 13th ammendment gave freedom to the remainder, and at the point in time where the freedmen are made into citizens by the fourteenth ammendment. We can now rejoice!!! But wait a minute, we now have 14th ammendment citizens who are now afforded "priviledges" and "licenses" to do the things(such as getting married) that they should be entitled to do anyway by virtue of their being human. They STILL were not afforded the same true equality that was sought for them. And since then, we have ALL been transformed from being citizens of our respective States and of the de jure National government, and into 14th ammendment citizens of the federal government of UNITED STATES CORP. This is another tragic consequence of the civil war that should not be overlooked, for it has had serious consequences.

I'm no apologist for the South, but my conclusion is as follows- The South was right for wanting to secede so they could get away from the oppressive tariffs imposed on them as protectionist measures to the benefit of northern industry, but it was woefully wrong for the rich white slave owners of the South(ya know, the ones who controlled their governments) to use bigotry and racism as a rallying call for the useful uneducated idiots who were willing to fight on behalf of such. It was also wrong for Lincoln, on behalf of northern monied interests, to wage a war to consolidate power, to impose financial tyranny onto the South, and use slavery as a moral justification for doing so when he himself could care less. The majority of northerners, of whom the abolitionist movement was mostly comprised of, and a minority of southern sympathizers as well, were certainly on the moral highground in concerns to slavery, and should be congratulated for their righteous stance. They are overshadowed only by the evils of war. Their resolve and good intention was taken advantage of by the Licoln administration, and they were unjustly led down a path that should not have been travelled down toward such devastation. People were played like fiddles.

Here a very serious question must be asked, would you trade the lives of over 600,000 people, and the bankruptcy of the United States, in order to bring about a change that was going to occur anyway?

I think the issue of slavery could have been resolved peacefully, and without such devastation, but the past is the past. We need to prevent the warping of governmental power from this moment onward ...this is why education of the libertarian philosophy must be taught, so we can have a true moral compass rooted in the NAP to guide us, and so we may recognize when a perversion of power is taking place.

Food for thought- There was recently a push for a secessionist movement. It garnered widespread support from people in all 50 states. What were the causes of the people in wanting to do this? Were the people who signed these petitions just racists who were doing it solely because we have a black president? ..or were there a multitude of reasons for why these people would want to disolve their affiliation with the U.S.? If they succeeded, how would history have told this story?

Civil Rights Act: of 1964
I'm done typing. I'm going to let my pals do the talking for me on this one...

THIS GUY GETS IT! ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMyLqdL-B4I BOOM!

Drive time with TMOT(People in the liberty movement love this guy): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCob0zKxumc

7)Misc:
A lobbyist on Ron Paul's Character: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoKZGY_6Ftk

The President of the Houston chapter of the NAACP says Ron Paul is not a racist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhv3paNz6U

The Compassion of Dr. Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4&feature=endscreen...

Tom Woods, thought controllers call Ron Paul "extreme": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FFhSr1A1do

Ron Paul, you either love him, or you don't understand him!

Notes
Perhaps, you should read The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek(1972 Nobel prize winner in economics) before you use the title of his book for a clever play on words: https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=252

BTW, there is no Article 10 to the Constitution, it only goes up to Article 7.

I hope I haven't taught you anything you already haven't known, I wouldn't want to commit that crime ;-p

Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: Countering

HIM-
Just so you know, you aren't really teaching me anything on these issues. I know about these ideas and theories, and I just disagree that they would work. In many cases, I feel implementation of these policies would set us back as a country.

You think libertarianism is the perfect form of government. That's your opinion and that's fine, but I see it as no different than the folks that thought socialism is the best way to govern. Socialism actually doesn't sound like a bad idea on paper, but we all know human nature and how socialism simply hasn't worked, ever because it takes away the need to compete and search for personal success. The idea wasn't bad, it was just kind of naive and too optimistic.

Libertarianism is too optimistic and naive in my opinion as well. The ideas sound great on paper, but if they were to be implemented fully today, we'd end up with a plutocracy. A real road to serfdom.

A few quick examples: Your man RP would like to get rid of federal student aid, minimum wage laws, and open our borders for full on free trade. He doesn't want to tax overseas investments.

Considering the amount of jobs that have been lost to outsourcing in our current managed trade climate, do you really think that these policies are going to help the majority of Americans? They will most definitely benefit the ones with the means to make the investments in opportunities overseas, but the laborers would now be competing against foreigners who work for wages ten times less than the average wages here.

Look at the chart on this site for reference.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/average-cost-factor...

If I was a business owner, and we had a libertarian administration, I would literally have no incentive to manufacture here for anything more than $2 per hour per worker.

Now about Mr. Paul and the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act... it's a huge contradiction, no way around it. He makes the argument that the states should have been able to make the decision to keep slaves or not. If keeping people as slaves isn't infringing on other people's rights, then I don't know what is. The government should exist to protect people's rights, and IMO, ending slavery was long overdue. That should have not been an issue left up to the states, plain and simple. On the civil rights act, Paul argues against it, saying the government shouldn't have the right to essentially spy on individuals and private businesses to end the problems that led up to the civil rights movement. Here's where the silly optimism argument comes up again: if these folks could have been trusted to honor minorities' civil rights in the first place, there never would have been a movement. You can't just create an act that adresses the issues of segregation and civil rights and not have any measures to enforce it. So yes, Mr. Paul is way off on those issues.

Veto powers alone wouldn't have given Ron the political climate he was preaching. He would have had to get people in the legislative branch to pass his ideas and that's a tall order for any president, much more so for a guy who wants to change everything.

One final note and I'm out. The constitution is not a brick wall. It was never meant to be adhered to word for word until the end of time. It's a framework. Article 10 is a provision our founding fathers gave us to make sure the people can alter the government's powers to suit their needs. Do people get carried away? Sure, but that's why we have different parties keeping each other in check. Taking a hard line stance on ideas that you read about isn't what the founding fathers had in mind. The government, the laws, the people themselves must adapt to meet each other's needs.

Sent from my ASUS Pad

ME-
You said that we should converse about these things face to face, and while i'm not opposed to that idea, I find it much more productive to debate topics in writing, where we can string our thoughts together, and have something to reference so we are not going in circles. This may turn out to be a lenghty e-mail, but if we are going to actually get to the bottom of things, and have some resolution, then they must be fully explored, and the only way to effectively do that is by actually delving into it balls deep.

As a side note: I wish debates for public office were done in this manner too, because it would rule out the superficiality of the event,. It would be a judgment of their knowledge, and not their ability to debate. Often, these guy are looking for that knockout one-liner that shows them to be more witty. Such superficiality on the part of the public has gotten us into trouble. Imagine if they were refuting one another in writing, the public would be much better educated for it, and we would have a better handle on their ideology. I don't think it would be quite as easy for them to go back on their words.

We have a duty to our families, our fellow man, and to our progeny, to learn these things. So let us be men!

Now, onto the issues...

0) I believe I've already addressed the topic of Ron Paul's "corruption" so I don't feel the need to beat that horse.

1) The type of school competition that is introduced into the school system by means of a voucher system does not take away from the fact that WHAT it is exactly that the kids are learning, and what they are NOT learning, is a curriculum that is mandated from a top down bureaucracy utilizing their government approved books. And although they are free to augment it, even the homeschoolers must show adherence to that curriculum. (I know homeschoolers, so I am not making this up) What we truly need is competition of ideas, competition of teaching methods, and an accurate presentment of history to be taught, NOTcompetition of who can better teach the kids to memorize this or that selected knowledge. We need schooling to foster individualism, and entreprenuership. There are all too many things that are being withheld from the minds of kids that need to be passed on so they may flourish in freedom, not agonize in servitude. Kids, for over the last 100 years are being regimented, and are being taught to submit to authority. They are being groomed to be an idiot working class. If you want a very interesting story, look into the history of our schooling system, and who exactly set it up. Do it before you have kids of your own... please!

Here is a good place to start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8 <-Keep in mind, people don't put these things together for no reason, they are legitimately trying to help people understand. The interview starts off slow, but trust me, it gets very very good at about 45mins into the video. Spend an afternoon watching the entire thing, and afterwards, you'll not be disappointed. It's a good place to start...

2) The Dept of Education should NOT continue to provide student loans, and as a matter of fact, they never should have started the practice in the first place. This is not an appropriate function of government, and serves to skew the cost of higher education. Do you want proof that government intervention into the marketplace, by way of gauranteed loans, raises the price of a particular product, or service? Well, look no further than at the price of college these days, or at the price of housing before the bubble burst. As a matter of fact, still today housing prices are being propped up well above their market value.

As well-intentioned as these bureaucrats are in wanting to provide a house, and an education to all who desire these things, they do not know the unintended consequences of their meddling in the economy. When the well-intentioned bureaucrats set out to centrally plan(socialism) the way things ought to be, they make decisions that have wide-ranging effects. Giving out loans to people that really don't need them, or can't afford to repay them, for things such as housing, or schooling, only serves to blow up the cost of those things in the market place. When demand for something is artificially higher than it should be, the price for it is equally artificially higher. Universities and home-owners, are charging more because the demand warrants it, and whole swaths of our populace are misplaced into supporting sectors of our economy that are realistically unsustainable. It is a misallocation of our resources, both monetary, and human. Many homes were built, financed, and sold, by people that should never have been working in those fields, and it is the same way with higher education too.

What would happen to the cost of higher education if the government no longer gave out, and gauranteed loans? Obviously, the cost would plummet, and find its true market value. It would be affordable, and aspiring kids would actually be able to "work their way through college" again. Of course, not everyone would go to college to get a worthless degree that they have no way to pay back because there is no job market to support them. Today, kids are graduating college with a mortgage payment, and no home! Many of these kids should be working in the "blue collar" industries that this country needs so badly ...the one that SHOULD exist anyway. We need to produce things again to close our trade deficit.

Much like the housing bubble that burst and devastated our economy, there are two gigantic bubbles that are blowing up. The first of note is the student loan bubble, and the second bubble, which will deliver the coup de'tat to the dollar, is the U.S. bond bubble. We have a sovereign debt crisis of epic proportions on our hands. We should either take the necessary steps to prevent this catastorphy by drastically cutting spending, OR prepare for hyper-inflation.

Pertinent videos concerning this issue:

Peter Schiff part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTNFfzUsptI

Peter Schiff part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk0DJ5WUSU8

Schiff takes to the streets: http://youtu.be/kXpwAOHJsxg <-BTW, as you well know, this is NOT isolted to the people in this video

...and now, who wins this argument? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3hc6LoAlu0

A great, and easy to understand book on economics: http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/20121116_EconomicsInOneLesso... <- it's a good start.

3) You said you are neither Democrat, nor Republican, nor Libertarian, nor socialist, but what I think you really meant to say is that you are not a partisan hack who supports one group or another just because they have an (R) or a (D) next to their name, and that is a good thing. It shows distrust of the system, and deservedly so. You are not blindly following the herd.

4) You described yourself as a patriot. Here is what a patriot is in Ron Pauls words: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin696.htm

5) You said, "no system is perfect nor will there ever be one", and I vehemently disagree. There exists a perfect form of government, there are only imperfect people. A perfectly just form of government should ONLY protect our lives, liberty, and rightfully obtained property, and should do NOTHING else. If it does ANYTHING outside of these things, it creates injustice.

Remember, the statue of lady justice holds a sword, a set of scales, and is blind-folded.

6) You said, "I personally just want the government to do what is right for the people at any given time. Sometimes they do, many times they don't. It is ridiculous to get 100% behind any one politician or idea because people's realities are different across the country"

What a great argument for local self governance, and aside from sounding slighty socialistic, and authoritarian if applied on a national scale, what you said is more enlightening than you may realize. I understand your intentions are good for wanting to cater to people, but government should neither be the problem, nor the solution, nor a problem created by a solution. I could go on about how what is good policy for one set of people is bad policy for another, the reason why government should not favor one group over another, and the many ways in how it does just that without even realizing it, but instead I'll leave a quote:
"Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws.

According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder.

Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution — some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding."

~Frédéric Bastiat

*Bastiat has many wonderful writings. More of his writings can be found at the mises institute.*

7) You said "if Ron Paul were to get elected he would have a hard time changing anything", and to this, I say, he would've had more power to change things than you think.

For example: The power to veto is mighty; The power to bring the troops home from unjust wars of aggression and conquest is mighty; The power to preach from the pulpit of the presidency is mighty; The power to abolish parts of the executive branch is mighty. The power to do away with previous executive orders is mighty. The power to appoint justices, cabinet members, and especially the chairman of THE FED, is mighty.

BUT, the power of an idea is mightiest of them all, because an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any government, or any army.

If Ron Paul were elected into office, or someone like him, that would mean that the country is truly ready for liberty, and free market capitalism. He would be able to do much in spite of Congress, but it would be up to us to truly effect change by electing a Congress that WOULD support him.

He gave it his all in the primary race. He may have actually won if it wasn't for the rampant electronic election fraud, caucus shenanigans, and the very obvious media bias. I don't think he was under any illusion that he was actually going to win; they would never have allowed that to happen. It seems as though his presidential runs were more about educating the public, and to that extent he has been wildly successful. He has started an intellectual revolution that is sweeping the nation. Many people have been inspired to get involved in politics because of him, and libertarians are gaining all over the country. He has done more to this country than anyone who is not in tune may realize ...but they will soon enough see the fruits of his labor. This revolution will not be televised.

Liberty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psV6pOsW9YY

Liberty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

8) I haven't even addressed Ron Paul's speach in front of the confederate flag, so perhaps tommorrow night I'll do so; There's too much to say about that to pass up, but a word of advice, don't let emotion cloud your judgment on this issue. Noone is advocating for slavery, only individual freedom.

*If I feel it necessary to add to anything I have presented here, I reserve the right to do just that*

Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Countering

HIM-
Hahaha no hard feelings my son. I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on you, just giving you an explanation of my issues. And as you can tell, I'm not going to let anyone convince me of anything without doing my own research first. Just thought I would share my findings since you wanted to share yours.

Sent from my ASUS Pad

ME-
I enjoy the intellectual skirmishes, as long as they don't degrade into hard feelings.

Anyway, I've heard it ALL before, have seen these arguments ad nauseum, and well understand both sides of them. I've educated myself on these topics, and get how things can be misconstrued to represent a particular image or agenda. If you think you are going to have that "gotcha" moment with me concerning this man's character, you are sadly mistaken. I would rather you just question me to explain the apparent discrepancy, than pose it in such a way as to make it seem like you are automatically on the opposing side. I'll be glad to explain the position he's taken, and provide supporting evidence that his stance is the correct one.

Know that, for me, and the rest of his supporters, it is not the idolization of the man, but the ideas he espouses. In reality, he is a terrible speaker, is now too old, and wears ill fitting suits. lol. He could be a better orator, but the words he speaks are truth. His dedication to the principles of individual liberty, and fidelity to the constitution, are unparalleled.

Please read The Law by Bastiat.

HIM-
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Countering

What kind of man would stand behind the principle that the government should only exist to protect people's rights, then go on to say "the south was right" when talking about the civil war? The south wanted to keep exploiting an entire race... just saying.

http://newsone.com/1812845/ron-paul-made-south-was-right-civ...

FYI I take every article I read with a grain of salt. If I link you to one, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree 100% with the commentary, its just so you can see the facts they write about so you know I am not talking out of my ass.

If you really wanna talk about this, we will next time we meet up. Reason I kept quiet on Saturday was because there was too much shouting and interrupting and a great deal of bs coming from certain parties. You know what I mean. :-)

Sent from my ASUS Pad

ME-
What kind of man reccommends a book like this to the general public during a debate? http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

What kind of man would advocate for the gold standard? http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Gold-Ron-Paul/dp/B000XG8T40

What kind of man would help to set up the mises institute? http://mises.org/page/1448/About-The-Mises-Institute

I could go on for a very very long time providing counter evidence to this errant idea of this man being a hypocrit, and a typical political hack.

I reject the notion that his reason for voting against the budget is so he can "keep his record clean" while still getting the pork back home. That is not his motive.

What would it look like if someone who wanted to change the country were trying to do so from the inside while still doing right by his constituents? Would he look like a hypocrit? Obviously he would, but it would be a mischaracterization to label such a person as that. You have to weigh more things into the equation than just this one issue, because to not do so, would be doing an injustice to a great man.

In his words, and in his actions, he is certainly NOT the hypocrit that these articles make him out to be. Use your head, and take more into consideration before rushing to judgement, or being pursuaded into an opinion by someone else with an agenda. You're smarter than that.
Before we can go any further, you must read The Law by Bastiat.