The question is to what extent does an "extremist" or a person holding "fringe" views realize they are an extremist? Do they believe they are actually part of the mainstream.

Being extreme and being fringe are not the same thing.

When the status quo takes what a lot of people consider an extreme position, like embracing US militarism and global empire, then the mainstream view can be considered extreme by a lot of people without being considered fringe. A esteemed establishment position is by its very nature not fringe, but it can still be perceived as extreme.

China's one child policy could be considered extreme by a lot of people, but it is not fringe. It is the policy. Martial law, er, excuse me, I mean "Emergency Rule" in our Democracy promoting and freedom level friends in Pakistan is pretty extreme, but it isn't fringe either. It is the reality.

It seems like people can take extreme positions that others would consider "crazy" and still have the position be consider mainstream.

The Patiot Act, the Military Commissions Act, Lieberman's warmongering rhetoric, the list goes on. They are all pretty extreme, but they were embraced and propagated by the establishment, the ones who really make the decisions on what is to considered fringe and what is to be considered acceptable by everyone else.

If you think that the people will suffer because Paul introduces competing currencies, it will be nothing to the suffering that will occur once the dollar finishes its plummet. When people can't afford food and energy, there are dead bodies in the street, and there is no more middle class at all.

Do you think the dollar is just going to fix itself?

And a lot of people have read about history, and a lot of peopl who research Paul end up reading a lot of stuff about how empire and central banks have been historically linked, and how it results in nothing but Military Dictatorships and ruined Empires. What is going on now is the same that that brought down the other empires, e.g. the Byzantines. It goes like this, the leaders are too chicken shit to tax the people for the unsustainable Military burdens they want to impose on them, so they inflate the currency, e.g. Debasing the Solidus to pay the Soldiers in their day, which we replaced with fancier, more academic, confusing yet pleasant sounding phrases like "lowering interest rates", and "monetization of debt".

Byzantium soon fell into a period of difficulties, caused to a large extent by the undermining of the theme system and the neglect of the military. Nikephoros II, John Tzimiskes and Basil II changed the military divisions (τάγματα, tagmata) from a rapid response, primarily defensive, citizen army into a professional, campaigning army increasingly manned by mercenaries. Mercenaries, however, were expensive and as the threat of invasion receded in the 10th century, so did the need for maintaining large garrisons and expensive fortifications.[57] Basil II left a burgeoning treasury upon his death, but neglected to plan for his succession. None of his immediate successors had any particular military or political talent and the administration of the Empire increasingly fell into the hands of the civil service. Efforts to revive the Byzantine economy only resulted in inflation and a debased gold coinage. The army was now seen as both an unnecessary expense and a political threat. Therefore, native troops were cashiered and replaced by foreign mercenaries on specific contract

worthless currency, imperial armies composed of mercenaries? Sound familiar? they say those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe one day, when we are all starving to death, the people will figure out that our empire is just another broken promise in the pages of history, the modern equivalent of the Byzantines.

A good ism/ist to sum up scoop and dump is Robert Fuller's idea of a rankist and rankism, which is from I've seen, the granddaddy of all "ism"s, and the one that does the best job of explaining the others without getting into specifics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankism

Somebodies and Nobodies: Overcoming the Abuse of Rank

http://www.amazon.com/Somebodies-Nobodies-Overcoming-Abuse-Rank/dp/0865714878/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194996589&sr=8-6

All Rise: Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity

http://www.amazon.com/All-Rise-Somebodies-Nobodies-Politics/dp/1576753859/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

They are good reads regardless.

Silly idea, really, so if you advance it here, you can expect your arguments to be treated with all the gravity they deserve.

-- William Timberm

You're right, the Declaration of Independence is so quaint and outdated... Thank goodness they changed it from the original version, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of PROPERTY" to something that better suits your argument, just in case it happens to come up over 200 years later.

I mean, why would AMERICANS do something silly like think that PROPERTY RIGHTS are one of the most important things to be considered during any argument? Maybe because property rights didn't exist until that point? Seems to me that you are advocating doing away with our quaint declaration and its silly insistence on property rights, and going to back to good old fashioned tyranny.

If America didn't exist, neither would the concept of private property. Exactly what the elites around the world would like to go back to.

Do you honestly think that the people at the very tip top of the pyramid care about you, your environment, your family, your dollars, or your property rights?

The answer is hell no, all the elites care about is power, control, and their own bloodlines.

And we have the US to thank for it.

But good old fashioned Tyranny has been around for ages.