by Jake, the Champion of the Constitution Originally published on October 23, 2008 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article5279.html
In my last article “An Anti-Ron Paul Deflationary Economic Theory” I referred to the possibility of a deflationary environment. However, while I was writing that article, and if my favorite Federal Reserve websites are correct, this theory is most likely wrong. The United States dollar has technically embarked on a massive inflationary period by dramatically increasing the money supply. Eventually this inflation or Weimar hyperinflation will hit us, We the People.
One of the many critical pieces of news it seems that the mainstream media is not reporting on is that in the Fiscal Year ending September 30, the US national debt increased by $1,000 billion (otherwise known as a trillion). However through October 21, the national debt increased by $443 billion, or almost half of all of FY 2007 in just 3 weeks. Holy Bailout Batman!
Often during political debate, conservatives point to the ninth and tenth amendments and point out that in order to be Constitutional a particular issue should be “left to the states” (i.e. it is not a legitimate function of the federal government. That’s all well and good, but does that necessarily mean that all such issues should be handled by the states? Bill Barnwell, in an article on LewRockwell.com, points out that “Libertarianism, on the other hand, isn’t just happy with ‘handing it back down to the local level.’” because federal monstrosities will just end up being local monstrosities.
One of the reasons that libertarianism is a superior political philosophy compared to mainstream conservatism is that it is consistent, logical, and orderly. Not only that, but its ramifications, if allowed to run their logical course, affect much more than just the highest levels of government. They apply to the lowest levels as well.
Many modern federalist conservatives make a lot of noise about “big government” on the national level. The reasoning goes that such and such law must be overturned at the federal level and returned to the state or local level where it belongs. Once there the local officials can do as they see fit, even if that means a local version of the original federal monstrosity. The implication, however, is that while the federal monstrosities are bad, local and state ones aren’t so bad. Or they are at least more tolerable.
Libertarianism, on the other hand, isn’t just happy with “handing it back down to the local level.” Libertarianism isn’t just content with ending big intrusive government on the federal level. It seeks to rid the states, cities and towns of the same type of philosophical power-binges and authoritarianism that exist on the federal level.
And what better place to find big, intrusive and arrogant government than on the local level? This isn’t just the case in big cities, but medium and small towns as well with their built-in good-ol’-boys networks.
As Ron Paul correctly points out, our currency is relatively worthless compared to the days before the Federal Reserve was created and before we moved away from the Gold Standard. ($1 in today is about 4 cents in the currency of 1913). As such, he recommends that the United States legalize “competing currencies” with the idea that the market (you and I) would decide which is better. Today’s article by the Ludwig von Mises Institute is an except from a book by Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1955) on this subject.
The idea of private coinage seems so strange today that it is worth examining carefully. We are used to thinking of coinage as a “necessity of sovereignty.” Yet, after all, we are not wedded to a “royal prerogative,” and it is the American concept that sovereignty rests, not in government, but in the people.
How would private coinage work? In the same way, we have said, as any other business. Each minter would produce whatever size or shape of coin is most pleasing to his customers. The price would be set by the free competition of the market.
The standard objection is that it would be too much trouble to weigh or assay bits of gold at every transaction. But what is there to prevent private minters from stamping the coin and guaranteeing its weight and fineness? Private minters can guarantee a coin at least as well as a government mint. Abraded bits of metal would not be accepted as coin. People would use the coins of those minters with the best reputation for good quality of product. We have seen that this is precisely how the “dollar” became prominent — as a competitive silver coin.
It appears that even though the Libertarian Party had met the requirements for ballot access in the state of Connecticut, a federal judge ruled today that “elections officials cannot be forced to add the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket to the Nov. 4 state ballot.” According to the Associated Press:
U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall said the Connecticut Libertarians waited too long to file their challenge, in which they said the candidates were denied a place on the ballot over questions about petition signatures.
Forcing elections officials to change Connecticut’s ballot less than two weeks before the vote would cause confusion and unreasonable expense, Hall said in her ruling Thursday.
And in a letter from the Barr campaign, Russ Verney wrote, in part:
As of this afternoon, we finally know the results of our ballot access efforts throughout this campaign.
A Connecticut judge allowed the state to keep us off of the ballot even though we had met the requirement.
The state employees in Connecticut not only improperly struck signatures that we had collected, but also miscounted our signatures.
After hearing from a technical expert on electronic voting machines, the judge decided that it would be too big of a burden to add Bob to the ballot even though the state was at fault.
I cannot express to you how much this upsets me.
Our republic managed to survive while using paper ballots for 100-plus years. The state could have printed paper ballots in a matter of days and thrown the electronic voting machines in the river if they are so difficult to deal with!
While an emergency appeal can be filed, our party who was funding the case has decided against it and honestly, after looking at our finances, we cannot afford an appeal.
I pledge to you that we will work together to correct this injustice after the election – and the many others like it in other states. I’m sure that many of Bob’s supporters will join us in our efforts.
While this last disappointment is our greatest, we have been successful. Bob’s name will appear before 95% of voters across America – more than any other third party candidate in 2008!
I am very thankful for this and expect that, given the failure of John McCain’s campaign, we will garner many more votes than expected.
Voters across America who were uncomfortable voting for McCain but were still willing to do so just for the sake of winning no longer enjoy that option. Now they can exit the voting booth with their heads held high knowing that they cast a vote for principle by voting for Bob Barr.
VIDEO Below. Last night on Saturday Night Live’s NBC special Will Ferrell came back as George Bush and Tina Fey joined him as Sarah Palin. This is probably the best SNL skit of the season thus far.
Will Ferrell reprises his impression of George Bush, which was one of the most famous in SNL history. In the bit, Bush endorses McCain-Palin with some of the best humor and satire I’ve seen in awhile on SNL… probably since Ferrell was one of the Saturday Night Live regulars. Watch the video below.
Humor, especially satire, is always the best escape from the futility of watching the markets tank and the country move further away from the principles of liberty.
NEW YORK – Wall Street headed for another precipitous drop Friday as fears of a punishing global recession stirred panic among investors and sent world financial markets into a tailspin. The Dow Jones industrial average futures fell as much as 550 points, triggering a freeze in selling.
Hmmm… Apparently government intervention only prolongs the inevitable and makes it worse. Sure it’s too early to know for sure, but things are looking bleaker by the day and Ron Paul is looking more and more like a genius by the minute.
Turn off your stock market tickers and your favorite financial news channel and go watch Chris Martenson’s Crash Course instead. You’ll thank yourself later.
Ron Paul appeared on CNN’s American Morning with John Roberts this morning. They discussed Alan Greenspan’s recent testimony and the state of the Republican “brand” as well as Paul being a potential spoiler in Montana where he is receiving 4% of the vote as reported yesterday.
“The Republican Party is really in a mess.”
“It took 20 years” (to rebuild the Republican majority in Congress from 1974)
“It’s not the regulation that caused the problems.”
“The person who’s name they pick [vote for] is the one doing the spoiling. I think it is the flawed policy of both candidates.”
Ron Paul had some choice words about Alan Greenspan today on FOX Business Channel with Neil Cavuto. In a bizarre twist at the end Ron Paul reveals that he used to like “Hogan’s Heroes”. Followed by a few quotes from the interview is the interview itself.
“I don’t see any easy answers.”
Greenspan “used to know what capitalism was about.”
Allowing “the federal reserve chairman to have the power is the problem.”
“It’s a flawed system.”
“They are intellectually arrogant.”
“No one knows what the proper rate of interest is. It’s always too high or too low.”
With Ron Paul on the ballot in Montana he is apparently receiving precisely the number of votes John McCain needs to tie Barack Obama in the state. That is if you believe the recent poll done by Montana State University-Billings.
If this year’s presidential election were being held today, for whom do you think you would vote?
Barack Obama 44.4%
John McCain 40.2%
Ron Paul 4.2%
Ralph Nader .7%
Bob Barr 1%
Undecided 9.5%
Of course, the undecideds are in third place, which means McCain could still come out on top if they pick McCain. It is telling that Ron Paul requested he be removed from the ballot in Montana too late for it to be done and he’s now running in third place amongst named candidates in the state.
In May 2007 during the first primary Republican Presidential debate many were introduced to Ron Paul for the first time. One of the first answers he gave during that debate explained in a mere few sentences his philosophy regarding the role of government. It doesn’t really matter what the question was (it was a question about phasing out the IRS). It was his answer that was the springboard for understanding the more finer points of the quintessential Ron Paul.
“You can only do that [phase out the IRS] if you change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be. If you think that government has to take care of us from cradle to grave and if you think our government should police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a foreign policy that we cannot manage you can’t get rid of the IRS”. (see the video starting at the 1:45 mark)
There it is. It’s quite fundamental. If you truly want limited government the government can’t act as if there are no limits. This is an actual recipe for change in contrast to all of the new programs that Barack Obama and John McCain keep promoting from the campaign trail. Unfortunately, it seems the majority of Americans have answered the “role of government” question with “gimme more please!”
Liberty Maven
Loading ...
