Those Boring Politics

The Libertarian Party Vice-Presidential candidate, on Israel, STRAIGHT from his own website.

1. The fifty-year-old Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is the core cause of Middle Eastern violence. It is wreaking tragedy on the region and creating increasingly dangerous destabilization for the entire globe.

2. American taxpayers, without being consulted, are giving Israel over $10 million dollars per day of their tax money - far more than to any other nation on earth. This enormous disbursement abroad of American money is rolled over year after year, and is often increased - without any debate whatsoever by our governmental representatives.

3. With this money the Israeli government is maintaining an occupation that has been decreed illegal according to the United States government and international law. This occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights is engendering escalating violence, which is costing the lives of numerous innocent civilians, both Israeli and Palestinian.

4. A multitude of international observers and organizations - from the International Red Cross to UNICEF to Israeli nongovernmental organizations - have reported systemic and continuing violations by Israel of the Geneva Conventions. These violations create desperate reprisals by Palestinian resistance organizations, causing a tragic and growing cycle of violence that inflames the entire region.

5. In 1967 Israeli forces attacked an American naval ship, the USS Liberty, killing 34 American servicemen and injuring 172. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer called this attack “an act of war against the United States of America.” For over 30 years the surviving crewmembers of the USS Liberty have long called for a thorough, honest, and open Congressional investigation of the attack that killed their crewmates and maimed many of them. To date, Congress has failed to give these American servicemen the respect of its attention.

6. In 2004 an Israeli military bulldozer crushed to death 23-year-old American Rachel Corrie, who was sitting on the ground in front of a Palestinian family home in an attempt to prevent it from being bulldozed. Rachel’s parents, Cindy and Craig Corrie, are asking that the United States investigate their daughter’s death by America’s close ally.

It is time for the United States to work toward peace between Israelis and Palestinians through the implementation of policies of rationality, morality, and practicality. It is time that American funding be contingent on adherence to international law and American principles. Only through justice and firm resolve will peace be achieved. It is unacceptable for Israel to take American money while disdaining American needs.

THEREFORE

1. The United States must end all aid to Israel until it obeys international law. By doing this, Israel will finally take the road to peace that many of its citizens have long called for. In addition, the United States will demonstrate the principles of fairness and democracy that will begin to earn back the respect that our nation traditionally enjoyed in the region.

2. The United States Congress must immediately undertake a fair and thorough investigation of the USS Liberty. This will bring the justice these Americans deserve, and demonstrate to future American servicemen that they will not be abandoned.

3. The United States Congress must call for an immediate and open investigation of Rachel Corrie’s death. The Corries, and all Americans, have the right to learn the truth. When Daniel Pearl was killed in Pakistan, American investigators were there within days. Rachel Corrie deserves the same.

For many years, Israeli and Palestinian civilians have been living in tragic fear and violence. As the United States Congress sends more and more aid to Israel, Americans are becoming increasingly embroiled in this conflict and imperiled by its violence. Peace can only come through justice. It is time that America stand up for our principles of equality, inclusion, and fairness. It is time that American policies ensure the right of Israelis and Palestinians to exist in peace. By doing so, we will not only bring peace to this sacred land, we will bring it to our own as well.

Source: http://www.judgejimgray.com/grayarticles4.php

Wow, for someone who “doesn’t want foreign intervention”, he seems to want a lot of “do what America wants or else”!

I would consider most of this post to be honest. Not all of it, mind you; some of it pushes for too much/is untrue.

But requesting that aid to Israel/other nations stop and that we actually investigate the USS Liberty’s sinking is pretty non-interventionist. If we were attacked, we ought to know by whom we were attacked. It’s not at all a pressing foreign policy.

Follow this guy »

anticapitalist:

He’s a libertarian, but follow him anyway.

He’s nice, eloquent and quite smart. It’ll make your dash MUCH less of an echochamber.

He’s one of my favorite libertarians.

D’aww shucks man. I’m now at 577 because of you. I… I appreciate you. And you’re my favorite anarchist.

I now officially promote this man to all of my followers. Even though it does not good. 95% of my followers probably follow you, haha.

Fiat Money is False Money and Leads to Failure

It’s obviously no mystery that the only reason the U.S. Dollar, and most of the world’s currencies, have any value is because the central banks and governments say it does. After we left the gold standard, there was no commodity to back the money or regulate the money supply.

Now, it was no mistake that we left the gold standard. As our economy would continue to grow and grow, the money supply would not grow to accommodate. Larger amounts of transactions would be done with the same money supply. This leads to deflation. Deflation obviously ruins an economy.

Sidenote: Deflation is NOT deleveraging. Those are two different things entirely. Deleveraging is the common viewpoint of deflation: when prices of goods fall. Deflation is entirely different.

The Federal Reserve created the fiat money system. This monetary system is tied to no commodity and provides floating exchange rates. While floating exchange rates is a plus for foreign trade, it is only a plus when the Federal Reserve (or any central bank) is responsible. When the Fed prints money like crazy, the value of our currency will decrease. It’s like any good: when supply increases, value is lost.

The bond bubble is fueled by this.

Now let me explain. The Fed created the fiat money system so the public sector could keep the market regulated as it saw fit; it tried to do what was in the well-being of the people. The middle-class of America was created by the ability to finance purchases with loans, mortgages, etc. Interest rates to the debtors was what mattered. The only reason the middle-class was able to be built the way it was was due to low interest rates. These same low interest rates were artificially created by the government.

Foreign countries would buy our bonds (IOUs of sorts) and wait for us to repay. Well, the way we would repay was through the private sector. The money given to us by others, like China, buying our debt went to keeping all interest rates low so people could finance and save. The microeconomy would adapt and spend more on foreign goods. These foreign goods would create huge revenue for the countries buying our debt. So with the money cycling back to them, they re-buy debt.

Bonds, the debt certificates, have maturities so that huge amounts of interest do not accumulate. Mostly they have long-term (30-year) maturities, but a lot of the times they have only 5 year maturities. The maturities are the set dates of when we must pay the debt back by.

Well as investing in our currency increased, we could keep fueling the debt-fueled economies. But to make payments, the Fed realized they could printtheir way out. They eventually had to with the short-term maturities. This was horrible for the economy. Since leaving the gold-standard, the dollar has lost near 98% of its purchasing power. $25,000 in 1929 would be over $300,000 today. We ruined the dollar.

But here is where this system falls further: other countries are decreasing investment in our currency and increasing in others (such as the Rupee). So as our dollar loses value from printing and our debt increases, our need to sell off bonds increases. But less are being bought. Foreign countries can’t keep up with our expenditures on everything. On top of the decrease in investment, structural deficits sky-rocketed. This is shown in the figure below:

Now with an increase in the deficit, a greater issuance of bonds must be met. Foreign countries did buy more securities, but not enough. See the below chart (link is here if it’s too small):

We can see investment in our debt go up a few hundred billion. Now compare that number to the $1.6 trillion budget deficit. There is no comparing. Again, they can’t keep up. And the fact that investment is occurring short-term rather than long-term expresses their doubt about us. They’re just holding money with us instead of investing; they don’t see a prospering nation anymore. And again, with the excess of printing and lack of investment, we’re heading down hill. But what will come?

A huge increase in interest rates and massive inflation. Floating exchange rates, because of irresponsibility, made our dollar fall entirely. The bond bubble is bursting. And the only way we fueled this failure was fiat money.

Fiat money and the government doing what it saw to be in the best interests of the people led to this, and we’re going to have to help ourselves when the huge inflation comes. The fiat system in America needs to end; we again need commodity back currency. And it needs to be a commodity that can expand with the economy.

A better possible solution? Competing Currencies.

Censorship or Prosperity: A Dichotomy

A short 4 paragraph essay. Originally 5 for a class but edited here and there (and exclusive of a paragraph) so I can post it here.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others,” writes Orwell in his allegory Animal Farm (representational of Stalinist Russia, an infamous form of a totalitarian state). Ray Bradbury writes of a similar dystopia in his novel Fahrenheit 451. Both of these aforementioned societies include widespread censorship; it is known that a common beginning for oppressive regimes is the removal of the right of free-speech and freedom of the press. States often enact policies of censorship for the sake of a “just cause”, but it is only ever self-defeating. Censorship is one of the largest dangers there is to a government and its people. Empirically, it is the best of means to provide domestic destruction and turmoil. Adversely, assuring the liberties of all people serves as the best means for a prosperous and happy society. Only tyrannical despots may find the arguments to justify a spurious freedom and democracy, such as the ones people mainly live in thus far in the 21st century.

Governments commonly fail after pushing censorship to its people: Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya to name a few. Others take longer to fail, such as Communist Russia, the British Empire, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and even countries such as East Germany and others in Europe. These are all centrally planned, all oppressive, and all failures. By removing the rights held by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the oppressive regimes effectively pave way for the use of incredible fiscal irresponsibility and crashing economies. Even in the Roman Empire’s history, as speech and other liberties become more exclusive of the people, its debt-to-GDP ratio accelerates to one hundred percent and sets the Empire into hyperinflation and then a crumbling end; there is a similar story for the Weimer Republic. Central banks, deficits, and overbearing regulation in both home and business life all stem from the end of the very essential liberty of speech. Books, films, and documents are where new ideas come from: new ideas for the proletariat and the people upset with the status quo. If there is no speech, there is no change.

It is also evident that as societies becomes freer, there is a more fulfilling life for its inhabitants. After the European communists fail and become more capitalistic, they witness economic booms (still susceptible to large market busts though by way of the European Union). The United States remains a guide for prosperous societies, because through most of its history it is fairly liberal and, therefore, very wealthy monetarily and sentimentally. China picks up some of these traits and races to becoming a superpower; more specifically, Hong Kong (a pseudo-sovereign-state, still limited by many collectivist policies) is listed as one of the most successful “countries” in the world in the same regards as the United States. Liberties that bring about change often bring more economic freedoms, keeping the individual paramount for any society.

Government controls the essential liberties of the people, and the only weapon against the government are those same liberties. Bradbury and Orwell demonstrate this in their works; global politics effectively does the same, both in the regard to its failures and successes. Orwell famously states that, “[i]f you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face —forever.” This is no fallacy. The state becomes vicious as rights deteriorate, and the first to go is freedom of speech and peaceable assembly. And one must remember that censorship from a “Democratic” government is no different than a dictator, elected or unelected. Force and coercion, which are state powers, are as dangerous as fire to play with.

The United States is NOT a Police State

I understand that there are many horrid laws in this country that restrict personal liberties. I understand that we have things like the TSA, the PATRIOT Act, and massive police brutality.

But as long as you have the freedom to openly accuse the government of being a police state, then you’re not in a police state. Now when I see freedom of speech being curbed to that extent, like what the Sedition Acts of 1798 and 1918 did, then I will be quite a bit more inclined to believe that we’re very close to a police state.

Once we lose our freedom of expression, we will have no defensive wall for our other liberties. We will lose all of our rights when we lose this right to free speech, which is paramount. We may still have the Constitution, but we’ve had far too many unconstitutional bills passed to depend upon it.

So yes, watch out. I’m watching out too, because I don’t doubt that it could happen. But for the moment, right now in 2011, we are by no means a police state.

This was one of Ron Paul’s best shots at an ad in 2008. I wonder why he didn’t win.

Now watch this. Oh, and this. People need to understand that this is not 2008. If these ads don’t scream the message that his support, financially and publicly, has increased tenfold, then I don’t know what does.

atomicsocialist:

Watch as I lose libertarian followers!

One of my responses to people who tell Libertarians to “move to Somalia if we hate government so much.” It’s probably the biggest straw-man I usually face!

Ron Paul just said something very interesting:

It was on the topic of immigration reform. All of the other candidates were talking about a fence and stricter border controls when Ron Paul mentioned that a fence works both ways. It may be meant to keep illegals out, but it really could also be used to keep us in.

I mean, right now, the government practically controls international transportation. Our freest means of leaving is by ground vehicle. With that kind of border control the other candidates proposed, in times of recession when many people want out, who is to stop the government from keeping us from leaving for various ridiculous reasons?

And don’t even say it’s not far fetched, what with all of these unconstitutional laws, like the Patriot Act, and police brutality. The government could very well hold those with capital in for its own benefit. Never thought of it. But it’s true. It could be a detriment to our civil liberty and right to leave whenever we want.

Credit and Full-Reserve Banking: Not Mutually Exclusive

The Austrian Business Cycle Theory focuses on the errors of the exponential expansion of credit caused by the fractional-reserve banking system, and therefor artificial low interest rates, created by central banks. Though, despite these flaws in the economy, many free-banking proponents still support banks practicing the fractional-reserve banking. I am among these proponents. However, when we say fractional-reserve, one must remember we mean that, while the banks can practice it, the reserves of the banks must be much higher than the current 10%. This raise in the reserves would be inevitable in free-banking, due to market forces.

But I see that some of these fractional-reserve system supporters support it not merely because a full-reserve system would offer too little credit, but because they believe that a full-reserve system offers no credit at all! This is a fallacy: one mainly proposed by Keynesians. There would be credit available in this system, and it’s pretty simply to explain how it develops.

From here on out, I will be speaking as if we have a full reserve system in place:
In a full-reserve system, there are two types of deposits (similar to banking under the Federal Reserve system): demand deposits and time deposits. The demand deposits are simply a warehousing service of money for depositors. These deposits are in 100% reserves (naturally) and offer complete liquidity to the depositor as they retain the right to take their money when they want it. This warehousing service comes at an interest rate price; people desire to have their money safe, and this is where it would be stored. There is absolutely be a demand for this (contrary to Keynesian belief).

The time deposits, by contrast, are “investments” made by people to the bank so the bank can lend money out for a larger profit. The reason this is called a time deposit is because there is a set time that the depositor can withdraw their money. The bank takes it, lends it out (most likely with a payback-date), and gets the money back in time for the depositor. Now suppose there is no payback-date for the borrower (because the bank wanted to take the most out of the debtor’s interest payments): the bank could simply take money from somewhere else and pay it back to the depositor (perhaps from the interest payments of the demand-depositors, or any of the bank’s assets). To give incentive to people to put money in time-deposits, an interest payment to the depositor is be offered; this is cut from the overall interest payment paid by the borrower.

So as more and more people put money in time-deposits and the banks lend them out, even though all of the assets remain the same and the money supply remains constant, credit would still expand.

My problem with this system is that it simply creates too little credit in the aggregate. For instance, interest rates would fall closer to 0 as the supply of credit increases for borrowers. Banks, at some point down the road, would make the call to stop accepting time deposits, therefor halting credit expansion. And even if they didn’t stop accepting time deposits, one would make the argument that the mere time deposits wouldn’t generate enough credit! And I would agree. Entirely.

Banks can practice whatever they want by my books, but most banks would still only keep a fraction of their reserves in the interest of making money off of credit. In a full-reserve system, the economy would still see booms and busts but extremely mild ones. And that’s what I love so much about full-reserve systems: credit is still offered while having relatively no recessions.

Though, again, I would take the trade off for a bit of a bigger bust (but not nearly what we see today) in return for more credit and a more functional economy under a free-market fractional-reserve system.

thewaterwillcome replied to your post: Random Unpopular Opinion:

It sounds like your running out of excuses. soon you will be an anarchist!

Actually no! I just believe, and this would take an entire post to explain, that a Minarchy is not compatible with a Representative Republic. Our specific Constitution would need some changes and ratification in order for a Minarchy to work, and that would never happen.