Well since gold is such a heavy element it always continues deeper on it's travel to the center of the Earth.What's wrong with having a publicly controlled paper based currency?
Say we switch to gold. In theory if a big enough gold find was discovered, that could cause financial collapse due to sudden devaluation of our currency. Is it really necessary to tie our financial future that because more or less valuable due to circumstances outside our control? I agree that an organization accountable to no one shouldn't be in charge of our money, but why not just replace the fed with a currency the public controls.
Do you think the ability to control our currency that comes with paper money is useless? It can be used to our advantage. Having gold money can be a huge disadvantage.
That can't be true. I think all the gold around rappers necks would be larger than that.Well since gold is such a heavy element it always continues deeper on it's travel to the center of the Earth.
In fact all Gold ever mined in human history is about a 25' cube.
The world produces several tons of gold a year. That doesn't seem right.The world produces a cube of gold that is about 4.3 meters (about 14 feet) on each side every year.
Gold is a solid value and has been for all recorded history.
Typo, I corrected it. 25 meter cube.That can't be true. I think all the gold around rappers necks would be larger than that.
The world produces several tons of gold a year. That doesn't seem right.
Gold prices go up and down on their own constantly. If our currency was tied to it, our economy would do the same.
Gold is a solid value and has been for all recorded history.
Doesn't seem like our regulation has stopped wall st from raping us so go on...Because free trade is responsible for much of our job loss/outsourcing problems, it lowers US worker wages, and increased economic inequality globally. The people who really benefit from free trade are the top 0.05%. The wealthy elites.
Economic regulations on the financial services industry are necessary to prevent Wall St from ass raping us.
So I like to keep my money and I don't want to get ass raped. Good reason right?
Believe me im not religious but saying "god given rights" is saying natural rights of being alive, and being a libertarian is based on those ideas and i dont thinks those are sided views. No i think sided views are things like tyranny and oppressive forceful governing of any kind, but just because philosophically liberty and freedom are anti force =opposite of tyranny, and having property rights, that can hardly be called a sided view IMO.First off, do all of Ron Pauls views have to do with "God given rights" and "human sovereignty?" The answer: NO
Secondly, not everyone has to view the natural civil human rights as "God given" in order to respect them. God didn't give me shit. Our society that was created by the great minds of James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and many more of the nations founding fathers. THEY were the ones who respected what it meant to be a human in a civilized and equal society. I credit THEM. Not "God."
I absolutely despise when people try to use religious bullshit in an intellectual argument. Fucking irks me.
You aren't entitled to anything simply because you are alive. THAT is a libertarian based philosophy.Believe me im not religious but saying "god given rights" is saying natural rights of being alive, and being a libertarian is based on those ideas and i dont thinks those are sided views.
Am I the only one that doesn't understand what in the world you just said? Sounds to me like you just tried to make the case as to how a sided view is the same thing, essentially, as a partisan issue.No i think sided views are things like tyranny and oppressive forceful governing of any kind, but just because philosophically liberty and freedom are anti force =opposite of tyranny, and having property rights, that can hardly be called a sided view IMO.
No, lets remember how the conversation began, your reading way to far into it.You aren't entitled to anything simply because you are alive. THAT is a libertarian based philosophy.
Am I the only one that doesn't understand what in the world you just said? Sounds to me like you just tried to make the case as to how a sided view is the same thing, essentially, as a partisan issue.
It's not wall st who's raping us, it's government. Government allows the existance of fictional people called corporations. You don't keep your money, politicians and stock holders do, who at most only lose money. But not even then, since government bails them out. Government doesn't care if you have a job. The policians only care about money, and those regulations and tarrifs only give them more. The people get the bill, the government and government welfare state corporations funnel the money to themselves.Because free trade is responsible for much of our job loss/outsourcing problems, it lowers US worker wages, and increased economic inequality globally. The people who really benefit from free trade are the top 0.05%. The wealthy elites.
Economic regulations on the financial services industry are necessary to prevent Wall St from ass raping us.
So I like to keep my money and I don't want to get ass raped. Good reason right?
I'm aware of all that. But to me, that's a reason to fix the system, not throw it out entirely. By throwing it out you only let corporations have their way due to the fact they are the only ones with power left standing.The very government you cheerleader for is the cause of why occupy wall street exists. Yet you all still haven't learned your lesson. You want to give the leviathan more control. That it's just the current regulations aren't the correct ones. The correct ones will just find new ways to circumvent, bribe and funnel to a new master. The end result will be the same.
My solution is to start over. In business it's called a sunk cost. Sometimes changing the parameters doesn't. Corporations are a major part of the problem. The solution is to pretend it's the 1700s again and start from scratch knowing what we know now. We keep freedom of speech but add yelling fire when there's no fire doesn't count, etc. We make it an actual ammendment the government is the only one who owns money and lends it out, no Fed. We now have instant communication, computers, and other technology that wasn't there in the 1700s. The concept of atheism wasn't well known, at the very least it was deism. Not only must there be freedom of religion, but freedom from it too.I'm aware of all that. But to me, that's a reason to fix the system, not throw it out entirely. By throwing it out you only let corporations have their way due to the fact they are the only ones with power left standing.
This is the reason for the argument:Just reading the last couple of post, We are kind of mixing a few things up here understandably it common and legitimate. I believed your referring to Natural Rights while one is referring to Natural Law, neither being exclusive to libertarians or necessarily an inherent property of, although it is commonly shared, the philosophy has been around since around 10 AD...one example of this is the silver rule, "treat others as you wish to be treated"(paraphrasing)..
Natural Rights confused with Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence - Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which is actually Natural Law. (this is debatable due to uniqueness of said document)
Natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation. This is often incorrectly being present in the United States Declaration of Independence and Constitution. However, Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable, without a document or not.
So we can understand the miscommunication.
This is one of the major points where religion or spirituality collide with philosophy, the most major one being of course free will. This is also a major point me as an agnostic. Free Will being as it is and Natural rights being at the core of spirituality is something that makes me lean a little more toward the prophets and think..they had some really important things to teach us....there is much more then this but these two things are pretty major for me.
As far as the Libertarian perspective I think you could actually argue that Natural Law could actually be an anti-libertarian view DEPENDING on the laws, it most definitely WOULDN'T be anti-state or anarchist view regardless and would definitely be a right or conservative view also, Natural rights however is most definitely a libertarian view and also a liberal view.
There is no reason to not side with ron paul, and if you beg to differ you are not paying attention.
tryingtogrow89: I probably agree with you a lot politically and philosophically, but the only things you demonstrate in these post is ignorance or the unwillingness to believe that there could possibly be another valid argument out there that doesn't agree with Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not the oh so great Master Wise One. He is a smart guy, with a lot of good ideas, yes.I didnt know god given rights and human sovereignty was a sided view...
well of course it does, The People decide the free market not some bureaucratThe free market makes the right decisions for the free market. It does not make the right decisions for people.
The gulf coast oil spills took blame away from the oil companies because they said government checked off on it. So when government cannot enforce regulations the answer is more regulations. Guess who writes those regulations? The companies those regulations, oversee. Yea that's fair.That's why regulations are necessary. If the regulations don't work, then they need to be reformed, not dismantled.
Because you don't understand the free market. You want to manage things for others and not let the individual decide and therefore grow. When government gets involved quality goes down and prices go up. We've seen it time and time again. You will think $2 is a good price on a good or service but that doesn't mean it is for me.I'm not sure why people think that the free market is more important than people, but I don't think it is.
if you dont like it and its within the forum guidelines toughI'd like to ask a favor please. Can we keep this thread to discussing polling/chances to win/etc and not just spam it with Ron Paul ads please?
bullshitYou guys have posted litterally hundreds of Ron Paul ads on this forum. It's already driven many posters off this forum.
make your own board and do whatever you want instead of coming in here and ordering people around.If you guys just want to have a circle jerk praising Ron Paul, why not go to a Ron Paul forum?
You don't speak for others. You dont like it because you want to control how others act and you dont like Ron PaulWe all understand you guys like Ron Paul. That's fine. If you want to discuss Ron Paul, that's ok too. But do we really need every thread on this forum spammed with Ron Paul videos and ads? It makes the whole forum annoying to read.
It's information not spam. People aren't stupid you just think they areIf people want to see more Ron Paul videos they can google them. Do you really need to spam them everywhere?
You don't get to decide for others what's good for us, you control freak. Go sell your snake oil elsewhere.Those videos aren't convincing people to vote for Ron Paul here. They are just annoying people. Please stop.
You don't get it. Because of all the rules and regulations, which those corporations help write, there is less competition, there are less mom and pop stores springing up. The start up costs add too much for many.I'm aware of all that. But to me, that's a reason to fix the system, not throw it out entirely. By throwing it out you only let corporations have their way due to the fact they are the only ones with power left standing.