+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 85

Thread: Can any Libertarians help me understand these concepts?

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troianii View Post
    1. The good standard doesn't mean we use gold coins, it means the dollar is tied to a fixed amount of gold. People could take the dollar and exchange it for that fixed amount of gold.
    2. Laissez faire never meant that people have no rights. The government would still protect basic rights, but would not subsidize business and allow it to run its course. Monopolies woke not be an issue. There has never been a monopoly that wasn't government created/supported.
    I think the real problem is this. ( in regards to gold standard ) We sinply cannot buy enough gold to back up the ammount of money in circulation currently.

    So, that being the case, how do you tie the money back to gold? And who has to pay the price of the loss of wealth? Because there will be a LOT less money around if you tie it to gold. SOMEONE is going to loose out big time. How do you figure out who that is?

  2. Prosper.com, finance, financial, investing, lending, borrowing, banking, credit card, payday, borrowers, lenders, debt consolidation, Prosper, investment, personal loans, personal loan, investors, investment opportunities, debt consolidation

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turin View Post
    I think the real problem is this. ( in regards to gold standard ) We sinply cannot buy enough gold to back up the ammount of money in circulation currently.

    So, that being the case, how do you tie the money back to gold? And who has to pay the price of the loss of wealth? Because there will be a LOT less money around if you tie it to gold. SOMEONE is going to loose out big time. How do you figure out who that is?
    Ooooooooo, now we're getting into the hard questions being asked of the gold bugs, libertarians, and Ron/Rand Paul suppporters. Expect novel answers!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Turin View Post
    I think the real problem is this. ( in regards to gold standard ) We sinply cannot buy enough gold to back up the ammount of money in circulation currently.

    So, that being the case, how do you tie the money back to gold? And who has to pay the price of the loss of wealth? Because there will be a LOT less money around if you tie it to gold. SOMEONE is going to loose out big time. How do you figure out who that is?
    Ooooooooo, now we're getting into the hard questions being asked of the gold bugs, libertarians, and Ron/Rand Paul suppporters. Expect novel answers!

  4. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chad2 View Post
    Please do not consider the following to be fact, but only my opinion.

    The gold standard ended in 1971. I believe the gold standard is when the government would own $1 dollar worth of gold, for each $1 dollar in circulation.

    Chad.
    President Nixon did not remove the United States from the Gold Standard and it would have been unconstitutional for a president to do this. President Nixon withdrew the United States from the Bretton Woods agreement (treaty) that required the redemption of foreign debt by the US government in gold at a rate of $32/oz (or $35/oz - I don't recall) which was the legally prevailing (pegged) rate of the US Dollar to Gold under US law.

    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/...sagreement.asp

    Remember, at the time the United States was still under the Emergency Banking Act from the 1930's and Americans were fundamentally prohibited from owning gold and Nixon was not concerned with that at all. Nixon was concerned because France had decided to redeem all of the "US Dollars" in gold at the prevailing "rate" and it would have rapidly depleted all of the US gold reserves. As I recall from then France alone actually held more "US dollars" than all of the gold in Ft Knox contained at the prevailing rate. I could be mistaken in that but I do recall that France presented a very serious threat to the US gold reserves at the time. That was what President Nixon was reponding to with his executive order.

    In today's world where nations don't back their currencies with gold the United States would not redeem any foreign debt with gold even under the gold standard. We would only redeem our international debt with goods and services produced in the US and "lawful money" (i.e. species money) would be reserved exclusively for use by the American People.

    Another false belief is that every dollar in circulation must be backed with gold held by the US government. The actual "gold coinage" required needs only account for the money being used in circulation and enough in reserve to meet any "run on the (species) dollar" by the American People. Currently there's less than $1 trillion of actual money in circulation which, if we never had "legal tender" currency, all of the "money" that would be required in gold, silver and even platinum coins. People also like paper currency because it's a lot easier to carry than species coins.

    If we "reset" the value of species money, as I suggested, to $5000/oz of gold then I wouldn't anticipate a lot of people demanding gold or silver coins to carry around for purchases. Remember that "resetting" the value of gold coins by 100 times (i.e. a $50 American Eagle would fundamentally become a $5000 American gold coin) then silver coinage also needs to be reset. A Silver American Eagle, instead of being a $1 coin would become a $100 coin. This resets all lower silve coins as well so a "1/2 dollar" silver coin becomes a $50 coin, a "quarter" becomes a $25 coin, a dime a $10 coin, a new "nickle" becomes a $5 coin and a copper "penny" becomes a "dollar" coin. We could use other metals, such as aluminum, for coinage under one dollar.

    The entire "species" money tree needs to be reset to prevent a panic run on the species money that would deplete the entire country. Always remember that "money" is nothing more than a commodity used to facilitate the exchange based upon a barter system but the real wealth of a nation is in the other commodities it produces. We only require enough "money" to facilitate commerce in the United States. Bank deposits represent excess wealth accumulation and are merely a measured based upon the value of money.
    Last edited by Shiva_TD; Apr 01 2013 at 10:17 AM.
    When social conservatives of the Republican Party state they want to return to "traditional American values" this is the "traditional American value" that they support.

    "This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men.” Andrew Johnson 1866.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by monty1 View Post
    Lib for our future, I liked your pothole scenario where the private company owning the road would be sued for damage to the user's car. I just wonder what you see as the advantage when it's obvious that the private company is going to recover the the price of the damages awarded back on the users? Something government doesn't have to ever do because the gov can't be sued. And the gov doesn't have to build in a profit either!
    The advantage to this is you have someone to go after for damages. If the private organization is negligent in fixing the road, they should be liable for any damages. I shouldn't have to claim that on my insurance, pay higher rates, and still continue to fund the road if the damage has occurred because of the road. It's like getting into a car accident that isn't your fault, paying for car insurance, paying for the damages, and then having your car insurance go up because of it. You didn't do the damage to your car and you didn't willingly allow someone to damage your car, you shouldn't be liable for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by monty1 View Post
    You never did comment back much on my province's ICBC auto insurance I told you about. It's a no fault insurance scheme where the injured party takes the government to court if necessary to recover damages. So regardless of whether or not the party that caused the damages is capable of paying, the injured party is covered. How does that work in with your vision of libertarianism?
    My apologizes on that. For the first part, our government isn't structured like that. It's going to be nearly impossible to get the government to pay for any damages. I say that, with experience, as my father and I were driving in our vehicle. A cop ran directly into the side of us. We had our insurance hold off on fixing the car until we got the State to pay for it. The final result was the state admitted that the cop was at fault but refused to pay for the damages. As such, our car insurance company had to cover the costs and our insurance went up because of it. I'd be inclined to go along with something like that, IF our government was structured as such. The way it is now, no thanks.

    However, I did some more research on it as well. It seems the ICBC has begun to let private companies into the market as well. I think that's a good thing as well. It seems to me that it works well, in Canada. My only question is how will it work in America. The way our government uses anything that has become socialized has become a big mound of corruption & waste for them (Just look at Medicare & Social Security). So, for me, I think if we set this type of structure up with the private companies, it will be better. Could it work within the government? Maybe, but I don't think with the way our government is currently setup that it will. The ICBC functions like a private organization where it puts any profits back into the good. Whereas our government would take that extra revenue and spend it on something else, thus beginning to create a deficit with that government provided insurance, and we'll be swimming in more debt because of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by monty1 View Post
    Seems to me that I as a user would much rather prefer to not have to try to sue a road owner with unlimited resources in lawyers. Sounds like a real losing proposition to me! But maybe you would build in some kind of control to prevent the road company from spending big to bail his a-s out of his liability?
    Of course that's always the risk, same risk as when it comes to suing the government and having unlimited resources. The difference is when it comes to proving it in court. Folks have to know that if you have damage occur, you need to take pictures. The society we're living in now, everyone has a camera on their smartphones. There is 0 reason not to take pictures of the damage and the damaged road. I've ran over a pothole with a car, completely bent my rim, and I couldn't get it replaced by the State. They claimed it was their fault, they just sent someone out to fill in the pothole, and nothing more could be done about it. I had to buy a new rim because of it.

    The only controls that folks would need is to ensure the court system upholds the law. If an individual can show the damage in the road, the damage on their car, have a report from the mechanic/car shop that states the damage occurred by the damaged road, there is no longer a need for more controls. The issue is that when these private companies begin to throw their money around, the politicians look the other way, and the consumer has to take the full brunt of the recourse. If we can cut that element out of it, the court system is where those folks will need to take it. However, in my firm belief of a true, capitalist free market, if folks catch wind of a private company fighting it and trying to out do the person, their profit margins will hit because naturally folks will boycott the organization. The best way to do that is in their pocket. Thus, less people will drive on their road, less revenue in their pocket, less of a chance of them actually fighting it and just settling it to keep their name in good faith.

    If I owned a business, the #1 thing in the world to know is 'The customer is always right'. Even if they're wrong, they're right. They're the reason why you are in business. Of course there are variations to this (IE: Fraud), but if the person has a legitimate claim and has a valid proof, no need to fight the point. Just right the wrong and the company will be better for it. But, the way our system is currently structured, it's easier to pay folks off then it is to do the right thing. That's where things need to stop as well.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turin View Post
    I think the real problem is this. ( in regards to gold standard ) We sinply cannot buy enough gold to back up the ammount of money in circulation currently.

    So, that being the case, how do you tie the money back to gold? And who has to pay the price of the loss of wealth? Because there will be a LOT less money around if you tie it to gold. SOMEONE is going to loose out big time. How do you figure out who that is?
    I agree, doing something like that is going to be basically pointless. Furthermore, by backing it against paper, if the paper is lost, the gold is still there. It becomes an issue overall when doing something like this. I've been advocating something like Bitcoins as the next currency standard. This is because it isn't subject to inflation, it isn't subject to fractional reserve, and the amount of coins you have are it's worth. When less coins are available, the value of the bitcoins goes up and vice versa. There is no way to increase the limit of the coins, as the system simply won't let it.

    My solution is based off of this article dated over 2 years ago (http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/...does-not-last/). It's still very much valid today (http://bitcoin.org/en/). It's a free market currency alternative that isn't backed by anything, there is no way to manipulate the total reserve (IE: Freely printing it), and the value is based on the market. This is truly the next de facto, I believe, in standardizing a valid monetary policy for the future good of all.

    Allow the markets to work, they will determine what's best for all, just give them a chance. Bitcoins is proof on how a free market works and how folks find ways to better individuals through their own creativity.
    Last edited by Libertarian ForOur Future; Apr 01 2013 at 10:33 AM.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertarian ForOur Future View Post
    The advantage to this is you have someone to go after for damages. If the private organization is negligent in fixing the road, they should be liable for any damages. I shouldn't have to claim that on my insurance, pay higher rates, and still continue to fund the road if the damage has occurred because of the road. It's like getting into a car accident that isn't your fault, paying for car insurance, paying for the damages, and then having your car insurance go up because of it. You didn't do the damage to your car and you didn't willingly allow someone to damage your car, you shouldn't be liable for it.
    You're failing to even acknowledge what I said. If you sue a private road owner, the road owner will gain it back off the backs of all the users. Plus build in a profit.


    My apologizes on that. For the first part, our government isn't structured like that. It's going to be nearly impossible to get the government to pay for any damages. I say that, with experience, as my father and I were driving in our vehicle. A cop ran directly into the side of us. We had our insurance hold off on fixing the car until we got the State to pay for it. The final result was the state admitted that the cop was at fault but refused to pay for the damages. As such, our car insurance company had to cover the costs and our insurance went up because of it. I'd be inclined to go along with something like that, IF our government was structured as such. The way it is now, no thanks.
    You don't seem to understand what 'no fault' insurance is. With no fault insurance you don't have to worry about the cop or the government paying for your damages. If you and your father were in B.C. you would have been immediately compensated. And not only that, if you chose to insure under the RoadStar system which costs a little more, you would have been given a vehicle to drive while yours was being repaired. Socialism works!

    However, I did some more research on it as well. It seems the ICBC has begun to let private companies into the market as well. I think that's a good thing as well. It seems to me that it works well, in Canada. My only question is how will it work in America. The way our government uses anything that has become socialized has become a big mound of corruption & waste for them (Just look at Medicare & Social Security). So, for me, I think if we set this type of structure up with the private companies, it will be better. Could it work within the government? Maybe, but I don't think with the way our government is currently setup that it will. The ICBC functions like a private organization where it puts any profits back into the good. Whereas our government would take that extra revenue and spend it on something else, thus beginning to create a deficit with that government provided insurance, and we'll be swimming in more debt because of it.
    ICBC has always allowed private companies to compete with the frills and the gravy but not with the basic insurance. I said that I believe and I also said that private can't compete. Bitter rightwingers keep them in business because they would rather cut off their noses to spite their faces.

    There's no us making excuses for your government's corruption to me. We're talking 'what if', not what is. I'm telling you how a system that flies directly in the face of libertarianism works very well. Unless of course you are going to modify your form of libertarian to allow government involvement in insurance and other. And btw, your social security, medicare, and medicaid are screaming success stories.


    Of course that's always the risk, same risk as when it comes to suing the government and having unlimited resources. The difference is when it comes to proving it in court. Folks have to know that if you have damage occur, you need to take pictures. The society we're living in now, everyone has a camera on their smartphones. There is 0 reason not to take pictures of the damage and the damaged road. I've ran over a pothole with a car, completely bent my rim, and I couldn't get it replaced by the State. They claimed it was their fault, they just sent someone out to fill in the pothole, and nothing more could be done about it. I had to buy a new rim because of it.
    The risk of not being able to sue successfully sounds the death knell on the whole idea. The libertarians wouldn't have any power to make it better.



    If I owned a business, the #1 thing in the world to know is 'The customer is always right'. Even if they're wrong, they're right. They're the reason why you are in business. Of course there are variations to this (IE: Fraud), but if the person has a legitimate claim and has a valid proof, no need to fight the point. Just right the wrong and the company will be better for it. But, the way our system is currently structured, it's easier to pay folks off then it is to do the right thing. That's where things need to stop as well.
    Ahhhhh, the libertarian utopia where eveyone turns honest in a heartbeat. So here's the way it would really work: You drove into my pothole because you weren't driving with due care and attention. Fix your own car!
    And if you don't like them apples, take me to court. I obviously can't fix a pothole that occured overnight (within the last week) immediately when it becomes a road hazard. And if people expected me to pay damages on their cars every time the stupid louts drove into one of my potholes, I wouldn't last in business until tomorrow. That should tell you that you wouldn't have anybody to sue either!

    Unless you get yourself a socialist 'no fault' system and then , ....... well you know. (see above)

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertarian ForOur Future View Post
    The advantage to this is you have someone to go after for damages. If the private organization is negligent in fixing the road, they should be liable for any damages. I shouldn't have to claim that on my insurance, pay higher rates, and still continue to fund the road if the damage has occurred because of the road. It's like getting into a car accident that isn't your fault, paying for car insurance, paying for the damages, and then having your car insurance go up because of it. You didn't do the damage to your car and you didn't willingly allow someone to damage your car, you shouldn't be liable for it.
    You're failing to even acknowledge what I said. If you sue a private road owner, the road owner will gain it back off the backs of all the users. Plus build in a profit.


    My apologizes on that. For the first part, our government isn't structured like that. It's going to be nearly impossible to get the government to pay for any damages. I say that, with experience, as my father and I were driving in our vehicle. A cop ran directly into the side of us. We had our insurance hold off on fixing the car until we got the State to pay for it. The final result was the state admitted that the cop was at fault but refused to pay for the damages. As such, our car insurance company had to cover the costs and our insurance went up because of it. I'd be inclined to go along with something like that, IF our government was structured as such. The way it is now, no thanks.
    You don't seem to understand what 'no fault' insurance is. With no fault insurance you don't have to worry about the cop or the government paying for your damages. If you and your father were in B.C. you would have been immediately compensated. And not only that, if you chose to insure under the RoadStar system which costs a little more, you would have been given a vehicle to drive while yours was being repaired. Socialism works!

    However, I did some more research on it as well. It seems the ICBC has begun to let private companies into the market as well. I think that's a good thing as well. It seems to me that it works well, in Canada. My only question is how will it work in America. The way our government uses anything that has become socialized has become a big mound of corruption & waste for them (Just look at Medicare & Social Security). So, for me, I think if we set this type of structure up with the private companies, it will be better. Could it work within the government? Maybe, but I don't think with the way our government is currently setup that it will. The ICBC functions like a private organization where it puts any profits back into the good. Whereas our government would take that extra revenue and spend it on something else, thus beginning to create a deficit with that government provided insurance, and we'll be swimming in more debt because of it.
    ICBC has always allowed private companies to compete with the frills and the gravy but not with the basic insurance. I said that I believe and I also said that private can't compete. Bitter rightwingers keep them in business because they would rather cut off their noses to spite their faces.

    There's no us making excuses for your government's corruption to me. We're talking 'what if', not what is. I'm telling you how a system that flies directly in the face of libertarianism works very well. Unless of course you are going to modify your form of libertarian to allow government involvement in insurance and other. And btw, your social security, medicare, and medicaid are screaming success stories.


    Of course that's always the risk, same risk as when it comes to suing the government and having unlimited resources. The difference is when it comes to proving it in court. Folks have to know that if you have damage occur, you need to take pictures. The society we're living in now, everyone has a camera on their smartphones. There is 0 reason not to take pictures of the damage and the damaged road. I've ran over a pothole with a car, completely bent my rim, and I couldn't get it replaced by the State. They claimed it was their fault, they just sent someone out to fill in the pothole, and nothing more could be done about it. I had to buy a new rim because of it.
    The risk of not being able to sue successfully sounds the death knell on the whole idea. The libertarians wouldn't have any power to make it better.



    If I owned a business, the #1 thing in the world to know is 'The customer is always right'. Even if they're wrong, they're right. They're the reason why you are in business. Of course there are variations to this (IE: Fraud), but if the person has a legitimate claim and has a valid proof, no need to fight the point. Just right the wrong and the company will be better for it. But, the way our system is currently structured, it's easier to pay folks off then it is to do the right thing. That's where things need to stop as well.
    Ahhhhh, the libertarian utopia where eveyone turns honest in a heartbeat. So here's the way it would really work: You drove into my pothole because you weren't driving with due care and attention. Fix your own car!
    And if you don't like them apples, take me to court. I obviously can't fix a pothole that occured overnight (within the last week) immediately when it becomes a road hazard. And if people expected me to pay damages on their cars every time the stupid louts drove into one of my potholes, I wouldn't last in business until tomorrow. That should tell you that you wouldn't have anybody to sue either!

    Unless you get yourself a socialist 'no fault' system and then , ....... well you know. (see above)

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by monty1 View Post
    You're failing to even acknowledge what I said. If you sue a private road owner, the road owner will gain it back off the backs of all the users. Plus build in a profit.
    I didn't fail to acknowledge it, it's just not how it would work. If all of the roads are privatized, you would be making money from the consumers that are driving on your road. If you jack up the prices, people will stop driving on the roads and look for cheaper alternatives. It's human nature to find the cheaper alternative.

    Quote Originally Posted by monty1 View Post
    You don't seem to understand what 'no fault' insurance is. With no fault insurance you don't have to worry about the cop or the government paying for your damages. If you and your father were in B.C. you would have been immediately compensated. And not only that, if you chose to insure under the RoadStar system which costs a little more, you would have been given a vehicle to drive while yours was being repaired. Socialism works!
    I'm fairly aware of what 'no fault' insurance is. I'm also aware that even the ICBC won't cover damage occurred by potholes in the road (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/met...375/story.html). Socialism doesn't always work. When it comes to damage on the roads, why should the individual, who is paying for good and/or service, should be accountable for it when it fails them?

    Quote Originally Posted by monty1 View Post
    ICBC has always allowed private companies to compete with the frills and the gravy but not with the basic insurance. I said that I believe and I also said that private can't compete. Bitter rightwingers keep them in business because they would rather cut off their noses to spite their faces.
    Private companies can compete when they are given the opportunity. When you mix in with corrupt politicians only passing legislation that only benefit the certain few, of course the market is going to look bad. Then they turn around and say how bad the market is and how government needs to continue to step in and fix the issue, it's a double edge sword and one, especially in the US, I'm not buying anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by monty1 View Post
    There's no us making excuses for your government's corruption to me. We're talking 'what if', not what is. I'm telling you how a system that flies directly in the face of libertarianism works very well. Unless of course you are going to modify your form of libertarian to allow government involvement in insurance and other. And btw, your social security, medicare, and medicaid are screaming success stories.
    If we want to talk 'what is', then we can talk about the three forms of socialism that is failing right now. Social Security has become a slush fund for the government. There isn't any money in the social security trust fund, all that is there is a bunch of pieces of paper with 3 letters written on all of them, 'IOU'.

    Medicare is going to either go bankrupt or create an bigger deficit, with ACA. http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...uble-counting/. To coin the phrase, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Same with Medicaid: http://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardk...its-residents/.

    Quote Originally Posted by monty1 View Post
    The risk of not being able to sue successfully sounds the death knell on the whole idea. The libertarians wouldn't have any power to make it better.
    Being able to hold someone accountable is better than having your insurance tell you 'Sorry bud, you're SOL'.

    Quote Originally Posted by monty1 View Post
    Ahhhhh, the libertarian utopia where eveyone turns honest in a heartbeat. So here's the way it would really work: You drove into my pothole because you weren't driving with due care and attention. Fix your own car!
    And if you don't like them apples, take me to court. I obviously can't fix a pothole that occured overnight (within the last week) immediately when it becomes a road hazard. And if people expected me to pay damages on their cars every time the stupid louts drove into one of my potholes, I wouldn't last in business until tomorrow. That should tell you that you wouldn't have anybody to sue either!

    Unless you get yourself a socialist 'no fault' system and then , ....... well you know. (see above)
    In the case of the article I made above, this is what happens when socialism meets with corruption and the consumer foots the bill. Had the police closed off the exit and not allow folks to enter, those damages would've been far less. Instead, all of those folks will have to fork out the bill for someone else's negligence.

    And there's no such thing as a 'utopia'. Not in a communist, socialist, capitalist, libertarian, conservative, liberal, or any other word/phrase folks want to use, nothing's perfect and you will never have your utopia. Once you come to that reality, you begin to set reasonable measures that can be as close to it as possible, not never quite getting there.
    Last edited by Libertarian ForOur Future; Apr 01 2013 at 01:40 PM.

  10. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by monty1 View Post
    You don't seem to understand what 'no fault' insurance is. With no fault insurance you don't have to worry about the cop or the government paying for your damages. If you and your father were in B.C. you would have been immediately compensated. And not only that, if you chose to insure under the RoadStar system which costs a little more, you would have been given a vehicle to drive while yours was being repaired. Socialism works!
    So government has no accountability for the people it kills through negligence and bad road design and overzealous law enforcement. So, some smart entrepreneurs step in and help spread the the cost of the risk so that the people aren't destroyed by that negligence and overzealous enforcement. If a private company were to get away with what you let government away with, you'd be screaming bloody murder about the evils of capitalism. Oh wait, you already do.

    There's no us making excuses for your government's corruption to me. We're talking 'what if', not what is. I'm telling you how a system that flies directly in the face of libertarianism works very well.
    As in road systems that kill and main hundreds of thousands of people every year? Yeah, that works "very well." Not sure for whom, but it works well for someone. Probably EMT workers. They keep busy.

    Unless of course you are going to modify your form of libertarian to allow government involvement in insurance and other. And btw, your social security, medicare, and medicaid are screaming success stories.
    They are? Social Security hasn't put aside a penny since it was founded. The system is bankrupt. A screaming success for politicians who had billiions more in taxes to spend on boondoggles. A screaming success story for the older generations which got lots of government benefits which they'll force their children and grandchildren to pay. Assuming, of course, that the children and grandchildren don't change their minds about paying the debt that they are inheriting.


    Ahhhhh, the libertarian utopia where eveyone turns honest in a heartbeat.
    If we believed people turned honest, we'd be like you and consider government to be a wonderful thing full of saintly politicians who have only our best interests at heart when they write statutes and build roads.
    "The principle that the end justifies the means is, in individualist ethics, regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule" -- F. A. Hayek.
    "A day, an hour, of virtuous liberty is worth a whole eternity in bondage" -- Joseph Addison's "Cato, A Tragedy" (1713)
    "The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion." - Albert Camus

  11. Likes Libertarian ForOur Future liked this post
  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turin View Post
    I think the real problem is this. ( in regards to gold standard ) We sinply cannot buy enough gold to back up the ammount of money in circulation currently.

    So, that being the case, how do you tie the money back to gold? And who has to pay the price of the loss of wealth? Because there will be a LOT less money around if you tie it to gold. SOMEONE is going to loose out big time. How do you figure out who that is?
    Eh, this is chicken and egg (and im saying this drunk at 6am). The problem isnt that we don't have enough gold it's that we PRINTED too much money.
    Political Compass: Right: 5.81 Libertarian: 6.21 Foreign policy: -2.59 Culture -0.48

    "I think the phrase rhymes with clucking bell." -Catpain Blackadder
    "Hell is six feet deep." -Audie Murphy
    "Resist and Bite." -Bataillon de Chasseurs Ardennais

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Helping Liberals Understand the Opportunity Cost Concept
    By Xerographica in forum Budget & Taxes
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: Nov 08 2012, 11:14 AM
  2. How can any American vote for this lunatic?
    By Awryly in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: May 01 2012, 03:29 AM
  3. Can anyone point out Albania in these maps?
    By marauder in forum Russia & Eastern Europe
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: Jan 22 2012, 05:49 AM
  4. Yes He Can: How To Help Ron Paul Win Iowa (Call, Stump, Organize)
    By jaktober in forum Elections & Campaigns
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Nov 08 2011, 04:31 PM
  5. Help me understand Democrats thinking in this!
    By hockeychick10197 in forum Budget & Taxes
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: Oct 11 2011, 05:45 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks