Letters to the Editor
-
Political ravines
There's no question that we don't know enough about Paul to elect him president. I'm not really worried about that, though.
(1) he won't be elected president
(2) before he is, he'll be raked over the coals.
As Glenn is pointing out, he'll be called worse things than "wingnut." At least, until he is anointed Glorious Leader by the GOP. If that happens, then I'll start to worry, unless I'm having too much fun watching the anointers twist themselves into knots over the anointing.
And only if he is anointed can he survive the vicious swiftboatings that will come. Only the anointed can get to be president with drunk driving and AWOL records. If you're worried about secrets, I'd worry about THOSE secrets: the kind that are deliberately hidden by the party machine to achieve the foreordained conclusion.
Our presidential races are far too somnolent and staged, like gladiatorial combats. Kabuki, someone said. And twice as boring. I'd look forward to the debates that prove Paul worse than Hillary. Or the reverse---I don't care which.
-
@RMP
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.
-
It's simple
Property rights as the basis of environmental responsibility is about as silly an idea as the divine right of kings, that's all. Like the justifications of the landed aristocracy, the justifications of the haute bourgeoisie have been found wanting for at least a century, except in libertarian circles, which for the most part refuse to acknowledge that they themselves have any historical antecedents at all, Hence they can contend without embarrassment that the social democratic revisions to the failed social policies of capitalism are the stuff of tyranny. Silly idea, really, so if you advance it here, you can expect your arguments to be treated with all the gravity they deserve.
-
William Timberman
I had crafted a response... but, you said it better. Thank you.
-
@William Timberm
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.
-
Go ahead and bash personal property
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.
-
Private Property is relatively new
And we have the US to thank for it.
But good old fashioned Tyranny has been around for ages.
-
@Chris
Focus. William said:
"Property rights as the basis of environmental responsibility"
-
Also
The reason the Romans debased their coinage is that they didn't realize it would lead to inflation. While I share your suspicion of economic experts, I don't think this particular cause of devaluation is exactly susceptible to repetition.
-
@ William Timberman
I appreciate your civility, however I am not putting forth property rights as the moral or ethical basis for environmental responsibility. It is, quite clearly and simply, a PRACTICAL basis. And let me repeat: I am not a Libertarian.
My point about property rights is that if and when they are constitutionally enforced, it would lead to greater environmental responsibility in total.
Taking care of the environment costs money. It will always be taxpayer money that addresses environmental concerns, it just depends on whether it comes from the government via a poorly managed and corrupt bureaucracy or from individuals who care enough to give their money to an organization that is actually effective at addressing environmental concerns.
That's my point. The Federal government has proven that it cannot address any issues apolitically - rationally - therefore it has not been effective at the things it spends our money on.
There is a better way than the state taking care of these things, and it starts with individuals being individuals. It starts with people (or corporations) who own property being responsible for it, as well as for their neighbor's property should they pollute it.
It is very simple, as you put it, you just seem to be on the wrong side of the simplicity. The Federal government does not effectively protect the environment, therefore it should not be the responsibility of the Federal government to spend our money to protect it. It should be the responsibility of the people. As far as all that talk about tyranny, that's not where I'm coming from at all, but way to attack that straw man.