Ron Paul Has A Plan for America.. and not a 5 Year One

The president Paul could end the wars, stop the killing, and withdraw the troops for most everywhere in the world within months. He could appoint people to end bad practices by executive agencies (such as rules forcing people to be strip searched in the airports or having SWAT teams raid cancer patients for their medicine) within weeks. He could overturn bad executive orders and pardon nonviolent drug offenders tomorrow. And he wouldn't push to make things even worse, as with Obama signing the NDAA.

 

OPEC declares that they will only accept one type of scrip. Bam, immediately that's the basic global currency, and people will value everything else against it.

Seller preference would work. In heavily concentrated industries, like big box retail, where there are only a few major players, collusion would be a forgone conclusion. Especially since it's very likely that those retailers would issue their own scrip.

 

Could he, or would we just see the late President Paul in the Capitol Rotunda for public viewing?

Could he, or would his appointments be rejected by Congress?

Wouldn't help the victims of state aggression against drug users. I guess he could clear the federal penitentiaries.

No, he'd just face regular Congressional veto overrides. It's not like he's got friends in the Republican party or the Democratic party.

 

The free market will determine the Federal Reserve's money supply, as well as the Treasury's money supply. The difference is that legal tender laws will be repealed in the short-run. Therefore, gold, silver, and fiat will be able to be used. Of course the Federal Reserve will be subject to any market regulations.

Currently, the federal government coins gold and silver, but not for currency purposes.

Furthermore, two competing entities will be engaging in currency operations. The Federal Reserve will obviously be the private sector entity, engaged primarily in fiat currency creation and circulation. The Treasury will obviously be the government entity, engaged in gold and silver currency creation and circulation. The goal is develop the closest thing to a balanced monetary policy, while eliminating the insulation that the Federal Reserve currently has, which prevents the American public from seeing the flaws associated with fiat currency.

 

It's easy enough to convert some other currency to OPEC's currency to buy from them. But OPEC would only be hurting itself to inconvenience customers. We need a free market in energy.

Why would they want to?

Monopoly is impossible without force, usually supported by the state.

I'm glad you've admitted you believe we live in a murderous, tyrannical oligarchy. Now, what are you planning to do about it, vote Obama in again?

They could in those cases that the Senate needs to approve of them. He'd just nominate other people who were clones of the first. If they refuse to ever consent to someone palatable, the office will be left empty. In which case, it wouldn't be able to do as much, which would be a good thing too.

Releasing them from cages wouldn't help them? Are you just looking for reasons to not vote for him? You're like a curmudgeon on a sinking ship, whining that the one lifeboat available is a little leaky.

The standard for passing an anti-liberty bill would immediately rise from 51% to 67% in both houses, which is much stronger check and would bar from passage many bad bills that would have passed otherwise. And you know. And he would also be in charge of interpreting and enforcing such legislation; undoubtedly, he would enforce it as little as he could get away with.

 

Well, the idea to have this kind of regulated monetary operation is to maintain, to some degree the closest thing to a balanced monetary policy. If you refer to my OP on this matter, I state that gold and silver has deflationary properties, wheras fiat has inflationary properties. One encourages people to save, and it encourages maintenance of purchasing power over time. The other encourages people to spend, and it encourages strong economic growth and maximum production, even though the production may not be stable or real, but rather "liquid."

Having just two entities will allow each currency to compliment each other. The differences between me and Ron Paul in principle are minor, but the differences in approach and the results of our proposals would be quite different. From an economic perspective, not even a political perspective, Ron Paul's approach makes me nervous. Ideally, his approach could work, but only if the intentions of firms and households were in the right place.

 

What about this kind of idea-

We let the Treasury and Congress work on a plan that utilizes Gold and Silver to back up the dollar.

The Fed Reserve is privatized and it either prints fiat or an alternative metal.

The people choose which they want.

 

That is essentially what I am saying. My proposal repeals legal tender laws which hinder people from choosing which currency they would like to use. However, the only difference is that you would like gold and silver to back up the dollar rather than have the metals as the physical currency. By the way, my proposal would not stop the privatized Federal Reserve from adopting an alternative currency besides fiat.

 

Sure, in the same sense that countries are forced to do so today. Because OPEC will only deal in US dollars.

OPEC holds the world by the balls. They can inconvenience customers all they want. We may 'need' a free market in energy, but we will never actually get one. It's never existed, and never will exist. It's just too easy to monopolize energy supplies.

As long as their choice of scrip was not ridiculously offensive to elites elsewhere, the inconvenience would not be enough to convince people to give up oil.

Monopoly is always possible when you allow private property. And even if we do elect Ron Paul here, and even if he did succeed in destroying the US government, it would not take down governments elsewhere.

Why would they want to control the currency their customers can shop with? Gee, I don't know, maybe because they would like to persuade people to take payment in the convenient currency, which they would issue, and be able to deny to direct competitors. Say the three largest big box retailers collude to lock out everyone else. They set up their little feudal arrangements and roll around in the uncontested profits, with no potential competition because they would not only control the markets, but access to the currency used to engage in retail trade.

Corporations have long since demonstrated that they're willing to collude in such ways, and that they are willing to sacrifice a little profit in order to establish petty control over their workers and customers. They're quite sadistic in that respect.

I don't know, propping some old man up to get assassinated hardly seems like an ethical choice. There is no answer to be found in government. You have to reform corporations first. There is no one messiah who can come in and fix this, no magic pen that could sign legislation to fix this problem. The core problem is structural, and well outside of the halls of government. Setting up one old man to be a martyr for the cause is not really an ethical choice.

There's a case to be made that the President would be in violation of his duties at that point. Which way do you think the statist supreme court will go if it comes before them? Think tactically for a minute. You're talking about a man who is a life-long opponent of a system of vast power. Do you think they would let him do any of this? Not a chance.

He could only pardon them for federal crimes. Those convicted by the states--the large majority of victims of the drug war--would not be freed.

A little leaky? The man would be a disaster in the office. It would bring things to a collapse well before anyone would be ready to pick up the peaces in a just way. We'd be left with a corporate oligarchy, not any free system.

Note; this is already the effective requirement in the Senate. Has this really stopped many "anti-liberty bills"? Most of them pass with majorities well beyond that threshold. They'll only pick up votes the second time around, because Ron Paul would make an enemy out of Congress. Legislators can be very petty at times, and will certainly vote against the interests of the country and their constituents over personal pique. Think in terms of tactics here. There's no way that he wouldn't (*)(*)(*)(*) off enough legislators that they would vote against him on general principle.

You can see an example of this in state legislatures all the time, where votes to override an unpopular governor's veto can go through as a routine matter--even opponents of the bill will often support the override on the second vote just to spite the unpopular figure.

Sure, and set himself up for impeachment.

 

What rate is the gold and silver at?

 

Whatever the market determines. There will not be a fixed rate of exchange set by the Treasury. Due to the lack of such a regulation, a revamping of the exchange process will be necessary.

 

will there be enough gold and silver pieces for the whole economy.

 

There should be. The idea for having fiat and metal currencies is to balance each currency's circulation in relation to the other. However, I do realize that metal currencies are more scarce than fiat.

 

I am very impressed by the level of discourse on this forum, much. much better than the dreck spewed on many forums.

 

Sounds great. Maybe Ron Paul and the rest of the government will agree to a plan like this.

Yeah, but there are still some people who resort to name calling.

 

It would be an uphill battle. Ron Paul is set in his ways. He has not changed his stances on any issue, especially monetary policy. I doubt he would concede to the likes of me.

Furthermore, I highly doubt government would take up such a proposal. My best bet is to wait until I am on the inside to bring this idea forward.

 

Hey, almost anything is better than what we have now.

 

They won't need to give up oil. All we're saying is to allow individuals to transact in gold and silver if that's what they choose to do. If they don't, they won't. If you're worried about governments using government money to control the economy, wouldn't you want to allow some kind of escape hatch from their monopoly?

That's not gonna happen. Monopoly can not exist given open entry into the market.

I don't think the root of the problem is corporations; I think the root of the problem is the state. Obviously, I'm going to want to try many different things to reduce the power of the state. The power of the state is more likely to be reduced if Ron Paul is taking the oath of office the January after next than Obama or Romney.

You're just making up excuses for me to not support Ron Paul. Even if Ron Paul accomplished nothing, he'd still be better than Obama, who would accomplish only bad things.

Now we come to the real reason you oppose Paul: because, for all your complaints about our "corporate dominated" system that assassinates presidents it doesn't like, you really prefer Obama, the Goldman-Sachs man, in the Oval Office.

You've just spent the past half-dozen posts complaining about how Paul would be ineffective in accomplishing his goals. Now that that's not working, you change your tune to say that he'll be so effective, he'll single-handedly usher in the corporate oligarchy you just said was here already! Apparently, you expect Ron Paul to be completely ineffective with all the things you agree with him on and superhumanly effective with all the things you don't agree with him on. Uh-huh...

You are deliberately gainsaying everything Ron Paul might do (if he vetoes bills, they'll all be overturned; if he nominates people he likes, he'll be taken to court; if he brings the troops home, he'll be assassinated; yet he will somehow manage to usher in a corporate oligarchy in the process) because you really prefer Barack Obama whether you admit or not. Instead, you want us to focus our attention on the machinations of freaking Wal-Mart.

 

Inflationary fiat money doesn't encourage worthwhile production; it encourages investment in useless junk the economy doesn't need.

Printing trillions of dollars to lend to banks makes me more nervous

 

I intend to restructure that "junk." My monetary proposal is apart of my financial reform proposal; my financial reform proposal is apart of my tax proposal; and my tax proposal is apart of my job creation proposal, as well as my deficit and debt reduction proposal. They are all linked.

My financial reform proposal will restructure "junk" such as derivatives, sub-prime mortgages, etc. so that they become assets to the aggregate economy. I will reference to a previous thread of mine on the matter:

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...-serious-discussion-derivatives-taxation.html

 

If they wanted to avoid OPEC controlling their currencies, they would need to give up oil, or at least reduce it to levels that are domestically available.

It would be better to back currency with energy. At least that would make more sense than gold, which is entirely useless. That's just a mass delusion, and an economically painful one. Having tons of competing currencies per country is a pretty bad idea. It's complex enough with just one currency per country.

What on earth makes you think that corporations cannot restrict access to their competitors without the government? They've already shown that they're perfectly willing to go to extraordinary measures to do so. There is no such thing as "open entry into the market" in an unregulated market. Smaller competitors will just get crushed or bought out before they're a threat. That's what happened in the past, when it's been tried. Deregulation always leads to collusion and consolidation. It's just inherently more profitable for established factors to fix their prices and aggressively remove startup competitors than it is to actually compete.

Competition only happens between private businesses when the government steps in and prevents them from colluding, price fixing, or consolidating. If you don't break private business before breaking the government, that is what will happen.

I don't see how you could possibly think that the state is more of a problem than the state's masters.

Breaking the state before private business is a disastrous course. The state at least does a little to moderate their most gross excesses, due to the weak check of the vote.

Obama will maintain the status quo as best he can, which will keep things held together. It gives us time to educate the public and prepare for the inevitable systemic failure. Electing Ron Paul will bring us to collapse within two years, and that's not enough time to prepare people or society for the shock. Twenty or thirty years are needed, at least. If the collapse happens too early, the result will be a consolidation of power in the hands of private business, and that will solidify the oligarchy completely.

The last thing that any libertarian wants is for the mass suffering that will accompany the collapse to be blamed on a libertarian leader. People will utterly reject the ideology, and we'll have nothing but corporate feudalism to look forward to. Keeping corporate tools in office until the point when the people willingly vote for a libertarian to shut down the government is essential, because at least then if the collapse happens to early, it won't be associated with "libertarianism".

Rand Paul might someday be an instrument for the socialist revolution, but not for decades. Certainly, in twenty years, we might be able to elect him and bring about the collapse at a more useful time. The struggle to free America is a long one, and one which requires a lot more groundwork than one presidential election.

Now is not the time to bring about the collapse. The public will reject socialist reforms right now. We need to make people more sympathetic before we elect a president that will bring down the old government. Spending a hefty portion of libertarian political capital right now would be pointless. It would just lead to greater suffering and a reduced chance of freedom later.

What we have right now is a system where the corporations do control the government, but only to a degree. The vote still checks their power somewhat, because they're forced to act through politicians who face reelection. Unusually excessive abuse of power, beyond what people are presently accustomed to, leads to reactions at the polls. Ron Paul's election would certainly lead to the end of the US government, but right now there is not sufficient organized resistance to corporate power to avoid a wholesale corporate takeover. We need to organize that resistance, and begin the process of corporate reform, before the government collapses on its own. There's a window of opportunity, but it requires that we continue to support candidates like Obama or Romney. They will keep the system together while we build the groundwork required for genuine social reforms.

Once that groundwork is in place, then we can elect someone like Ron Paul (whom I doubt will be in any shape to run, if he is still alive by then), who will institute libertarian policies and bring about the old government's collapse.

I believe that Ron Paul will be completely ineffective, and that will lead to the collapse of the US government. We're at a very critical juncture right now. We can't let a libertarian be associated with collapse at this point in time. When we do elect that first libertarian, there needs to be a public understanding that he is really just there to manage the shutdown of the government. Right now supporters think that Ron Paul would save the government, which is precisely the wrong perspective we need. We need people to understand that electing a libertarian means shutting down the government, and still be willing to vote in large enough numbers to win. Electing a libertarian on the false pretense of saving the government will only lead to disappointment and a rejection of the cause. We all know that Ron Paul would cause the old government to collapse if he were elected, but we have to rationally assess public opinion and ask if this is really the right time for that. Do we have the organization on the ground to manage the transition to a socialist society? Will we still be facing overwhelming corporate opposition? I just can't see how that could end with anything but total, outright corporate domination at this time.

All of these activities would be effective in bringing the old government down, but now is not the time for the government to collapse. We don't have the organizational strength required to establish a just society after the collapse.

 

Controlling which currency how?

If you think so, then you should want competition, because in a competitive market, the best rises to the top. If energy is the best currency, as you say, that's what people would move into in competitive market. Fine by me. I'm easy, just so long as there's freedom of choice.

"Colluding" and "price fixing" are just words. Businesses can't "aggressively" do anything, unless they, you know, are able to engage in aggression. The point of having a free, open, and "unregulated" market is that all aggression is prohibited; therefore, no one can forcibly keep competitors out of the market.

The self-described "left" has the whole matter backwards. Businesses aren't the root of the problem; the state is the root of the problem. The state is the engine of "legitimate" aggression. Only the state is able to engage in self-granted legal acts of aggression, and that is the problem. It doesn't matter who controls the state because the state, as the font of aggression, is the problem no matter who controls it. If it wasn't some "corporations" you don't like, it would be some hereditary aristocrats or "the Party" or even tyranny of majority (i.e. "democracy"). But it's all equally evil because it's all equally aggressive. Again, who wields the engine of violence doesn't matter. All corporations could disappear overnight and the state would retain all its power to subjugate individuals; maybe it would just subjugate different groups of individuals of the behalf of different masters. On the other hand, if the state disappeared overnight, whichever special interests are empowered by it would lose all their power thereby.

The state is the Ring of Power. Goldman Sachs or whoever is just the one that happens to be bearing it the time. And like Sauron's Ring, no one can wield the state for good, not a "socialist" majority or anybody, because the state = aggression and aggression is always evil. Democratic socialism/social democracy is the Boromir of political ideologies.

Yeah, I don't really buy the whole "critical-mass apocalypse" narrative, least of all when the goal is "socialist revolution," which--newsflash!--libertarians do not favor. I'd be happier just to walk through the airport without being molested.

Again, first you say RP would be ineffective in everything he tried, then you say he'd bring the whole state. I don't believe either. I believe he'd weaken the power of the federal government, which would also weaken the power of the corporate special interests tied to it. So much the better, but, again, the key issue is the power of the engine of aggression: the state.

"Libertarian" doesn't mean shutting down the government. Even Ron Paul isn't interested in causing the state to collapse. I'm more radical than he is and even I think you need a gradual transition.

Also, it's nice that you think libertarians and revolutionary socialists are allied somehow, but I'm afraid if the state did collapse and left nothing but radical libertarians and radical socialists behind, we'd quickly be at each others throats.

 

Like all the rest of the people in your colonies. Your fuhrers do tend to affect our lives rather, Oh Great One.

 

Well, if it's a colony, it certainly isn't a British one. Only 30 percent is English, Scottish, or Irish.

 

I was speaking about the UK, oh Attentive One.