"Government takes from productive individuals and spends the revenue in an unproductive way", often inflating the costs of goods & services that would otherwise be reasonably affordable such as health care. We ought to be able to shop around doctors like we do when we need to get our car fixed, the problem is there isn't a doctor our there that actually knows what the cost is for any particular service is because of government subsidy that over time, inflates the true cost beyond reasonable. I bet there are enough people that would rather pay their own way if the costs were reasonable enough.
The entire banking system operates the same way, only on a much larger scale and more severe level of fraud. Read about fractional reserve banking, the reserve ratio that allows a bank to create 10 times the amount of credit that it actually has in cash deposits. In 2004, the Federal Reserve increased the reserve ratios to 40 to 1 for all the big shot investments banks on wall street like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merril Lynch, & Goldman.... DO YOU THINK THAT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE HOUSING BUBBLE?
Call-In Numbers
Support Democrats: (202) 737-0002
Support Republicans: (202) 737-0001
Support Independents: (202) 628-0205
Outside U.S.: (202) 628-0184
Email: journal@c-span.org
plus a few quick tips on contacting the show: http://inewstube.com/inewstube_columnists/top_6_tips_for_contacting_c-spans_wash ington_journal_w/_phone_number_list.html
Thank you so much for inviting Dr. Ron Paul onto the show, and thank you for C-SPAN!
I have a few questions I'd like asked of Dr. Paul:
Are your economic solutions gaining credibility with Republican Congressmen, as indicated by their unanimous "Nay" vote on H.R. 1: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009?
Are you surprised by the "Nay" votes from the 11 Democratic congressmen?
What would you propose if you were addressing the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos?
How would you advise Pres. Obama regarding American trade policy, especially with China and Mexico?
Are you concerned that President Obama will expand the "War on Terror" not only into Pakistan, but also Somalia, Sudan, or elsewhere?
What is the current status of your 501(c)4 Campaign for Liberty?
--
Thank you for considering my questions.
Regards,
Posted 01/29/09 01:34 AM ksa4liberty Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Way to go! Will be watching the live stream.
Posted 01/29/09 07:08 AM Karen in NC Southern Pines, NC
Wow. Uninterrupted explanation of where we are going and why!
Mentioned the C4L and put up a shot of the home page.
Just watched Dr. Paul on CSPAN, and I'm so proud of him, I'm wanting to shout. He was sharp, on target, confident, and also presidential looking, so go for it in 2012, Dr. Paul! You can do it. And instead of saying that it's not you, but your message, by golly, make it you, and say that this country needs YOU, because we DO!
The email address to send a 'thank you' to the program on CSPAN that just aired is:
journal@c-span.org
Posted 01/29/09 08:19 AM year1913 Madison Heights, MI
Ron Paul Revolution 2012 !
Let's get the process rolling .. Ron Paul Revolution signs, shirts, bumper stickers everywhere with the classic "REVOLution" logo on it .. I just sent C4L a request to see if we could get that merchandise added to the store... remember the impact all of the signs had in 2007? Let's do it again but 5 times as many and let's do it now...
Man, the people who call into these shows are morons. Across the board...
Posted 01/29/09 10:43 AM justinb Oklahoma City, OK
If that's the average citizen that's calling in, we really got our work cut out for us in educating them. Some of those callers dumbed me down like a Beavis and Butthead episode.
Posted 01/29/09 10:51 AM JamesButabi Pawtucket, RI
am i the only one not able to load the links to the archive?
Posted 01/29/09 10:54 AM Edward Hipps Langhorne, PA
Make sure you close all spaces when copying and pasting the address.
Good exposé on Dr. Paul. I'm surprised to see once again how entrenched most of the callers are to understanding how the political and financial picture big govt lives in.
Big govt is the Borg; resistance is futile unless people think in terms of how best to promote liberty.
Good exposé on Dr. Paul. I'm surprised to see once again how entrenched most of the callers are to understanding how the political and financial picture big govt lives in.
Big govt is the Borg; resistance is futile unless people think in terms of how best to promote liberty.
I was so happy to see this! But I agree with many of you who said that if the type of people who called in are the "typical American" we do have our work cut out for us! O.O
Just got around to listening. What is so clearly noticeable about Dr. Paul is how easily he discerns the questioner's attitude and goes right to the heart of the matter rather than dancing around the questions as most politicians do.
The ignorant questions asked only reinforce my belief that things will not change until Joe Sixpack can't get his beer and watch TV on Friday nights.
Unfortunately Ron Paul is dead wrong about Microsoft: It is a classic case of network externality and the vast majority of people can see it clearly enough that no amount of appeal to authority in the libertarian literature on monopoly is going to overcome it. Indeed, it is precisely this kind of thinking that will kill the Campaign for Liberty unless we replace "property rights" with "natural rights" and "artificial rights" in our lexicon.
Posted 01/29/09 12:31 PM Justin DeWind Grand Rapids, MI
I agree with jabowery to a degree. Microsoft was a company that grew organically without government subsidization. However, the free flow of credit enables companies to get much larger than I think would be possible under a sound monetary system.
The free market is NOT perfect and that is where government exists to protect citizens from corporations via fraud laws. Perhaps our definition of fraud is archaic?
Let me expand on "natural rights" vs "artificial rights".
Natural rights are those rights we possess in the Lockean state of nature.
The state of nature is prior to any social contract.
Social contracts are agreements between sovereign individuals to create artificial rights.
The right to life is a "natural right" but when in a Washington State Republican Party Platform Committee meeting, one of my fellow Ron Paul supporters uttered the word "sanctity of property rights". This immediately brought forth a objection from a right to life advocate who said that the word "sanctity" should be reserved for "life". The Ron Paul supporter had to back down.
The right to life advocate was right but there is also a _sense_ in which _some_ "property" rights should enjoy "sanctity":
When those property rights are natural rights.
What I mean here is more than mere a mere statement about "self-ownership" because without _natural territory_ we have no natural life. Moreover, humans as tool-users have also a natural right to their tools and weapons. They have a natural right to the use of their tools on the territory for life support of their families -- and they have the natural right to use their weapons to defend their territory including their families, tools and the weapons themselves.
ALL OTHER RIGHTS THAT WE THINK OF AS "PROPERTY RIGHTS" ARE ARTIFICIAL AND DO NOT ENJOY "SANCTITY".
I loved the Monopoly caller and RP's response. That was a classic response, polite, encouraging the caller to learn more and then a well presented rebuttal.
The last caller... well, this is where I say, "always respect the individual, but I don't have to repect everyones opinion"
Posted 01/29/09 12:44 PM Justin DeWind Grand Rapids, MI
The last caller was confused about what free market capitalism.
Posted 01/29/09 12:49 PM Justin DeWind Grand Rapids, MI
The last caller was confused about what free market capitalism is.
Posted 01/29/09 1:05 PM fcreature East Greenbush, NY
Is the American public really this uneducated? These callers, for the most part, had absolutely no clue what they were talking about. The sad thing is most Americans think the same way as the callers.
Posted 01/29/09 1:06 PM BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA
January 29, 2009
America Is Showing Signs Of Life!!!
Ron Paul is the great educator of our time. And America is still alive, as evidenced by the voice of this great statesman being given a platform.
The wide distribution from where the callers heard this message shows how quickly the message of liberty can reach people. There are listeners, there are people who are learning about classical liberalism, and they are finding their roots.
The unConstitutional coup has created a situation where it can only stop the flow of information by coming out and making its tyrannical self known. It knows that, in a matter of minutes, Americans would rise up and destroy their coup.
That last caller is more typical than you'd think. Obama, Frank, et al are blaming our situation on the free market, and the MSM is dutifully reporting it. The typical American gets their new from one MSM network. So just like political correctness and global warming, if you repeat something often enough, it becomes accepted as the truth. Unfortunately it seems to be working.
Check out Jay Nordlinger's journal from the Davos Economic forum on NRO. The general consensus there is that the era of the free market is over, and the new world economy should be controlled by government (except Putin, of all people, who warned against too much regulation!)
I am right with you, as usual. Perhaps economic strain will force people to engage in self education on political/economic matters (rather than just eating MSM for breakfast, lunch and dinner). As for now, it seems the posturing of one’s ego and fighting over which is the better color (red or blue) will continue to reign in televised discourse. The coming problem I see (as have others, here) is the preconceived notions of Republicans and Democrats. Even with the growing popularity of the message Ron Paul (and all of us) subscribes to, I can’t help but be pessimistic in its reception by the masses. It’s as if Ron Paul needs to append “voted against the Iraq war and its funding, voted against the Patriot Act, voted against FISA, voted against all spending, et cetera” to any introduction on television or print. Does Ron Paul have to leave the Republican Party for people to listen intently? Are we doomed to be divided and conquered by the two parties and their thespian leaders? Funny, my only notion of optimism is the result of economic decline. Now, back to educating those actually within my sphere of influence!
dewind, you're addressing a secondary problem. The primary problem is network externality. The more people who use a standard, the more of a market that standard represents. The more of a market a standard represents, the more software is designed for that standard. The more software is deigned for a standard, the more attractive the standard is to those not currently using it. If the standard is open -- allowing anyone to provide an implementation of it -- the network effect is anti-competitive _only_ with other standards -- not with other vendors of those standards.
This positive feedback network effect is independent of the quality of the winning standard vs other standards.
Tragically, libertarians have been mislead by strawmen arguments for "natural monopolies" correctly knocked down by DeLorenzo in "The Myth of Natural Monopoly". But they _are_ strawmen arguments -- and when DeLorenzo comes to -- at last -- address a real network effect in the form of the telephone network, he resorts to polemics and red-herring rather than reason. Yes, competing telephone companies did enjoy around half of the market prior to government intervention and yes the government intervention did have a role in killing them off and yes it was typical of the public sector rent-seeking that libertarians correctly denounce.
But now lets get down to brass tacks:
The argument for the network effect in telephones is fundamentally different from the argument for the network effect in electricity, cable TV and other one-way services because the value _to other customers_ of a service is enhanced by their use of the two-way networks while no value is added to the one-way networks. The two way networks exhibit the network effect and the one way networks exhibit _only_ economies of scale.
Now, having said that, there are different degrees of network effect that have an impact on _all_ property values in varying degrees, and our problem is we need a social contract that compensates for the resulting problem: Corruption of the wealthiest by delivering to them more wealth until it becomes so centralized that we may as well be living in a Soviet central planning country.
There is a social contract that not only handles this practical problem of maintaining competition, but also respects the sanctity of natural rights.
Fabian wrote: "that last woman who called from new jersey had no idea what the hell she was talking about
i guess people think if you're a republican they assume that you agree with everything republicans have ever done.
she thought reagan made government smaller ... obviously someone who doesn't fact check anything"
Fabian, I agree. But look at what a gentleman Dr. Paul was. There are so many misinformed Democrats AND Republicans. I loved being able to watch Ron Paul speak, or be on, for thirty whole minutes! This is the youtube that I am going to have friends and family I am trying to get to join our Campaign for Liberty, to watch.
We have four long hard years of trying to educate people ahead of us in preparation for 2012. Let's keep working at it.
i disagree with the Microsoft being a monopoly thing. Im a mac user and do not like Microsoft products at all, but I'm not going to call them a monopoly. I do have a choice of software to use, weather its apple software, or Linux. I use both of those platforms of course, Microsoft is not really a monopoly at least not anymore, Microsoft is an oligopoly, not a monopoly
ohh and Yes the American public really is that uneducated. To most American's government spending is a good thing and it doesn't matter where the money comes from, even if it comes from the magical printing press of wealth
A few posts up on this blog, posters "jabowery and dewind" argue that Ron Paul is wrong on Monopolies, that government must intervene to break them down. Ron Paul argued that they only exist when government creates them. In this, Ron Paul is following Dr. Murray Rothbard, the former head of the Austrian school of economics. I agree with them, although there has not been uniform agreement on this issue through all Austrian economic school thinkers.
Let me say this: If Microsoft, with no help from the government, produces a product so good and also so cheap that no other company can compete...so what. We the consumer would not be benefited, quite the contrary, if the government stepped in and broke up Microsoft. I mean to wha purpose? So that other companies that make lower quality products more expensively could be purchased?? No. Only if Microsoft was committing fraud or using force to keep other more productive people from starting companies, would the government need to be involved. Government should only enforce contracts, make sure no violence is used, and make sure the markets are free, have free entry. Then let the best company win. If in a particular field one company dominates with the above caviats, so be it. Not a problem. I believe this is the point Ron Paul was trying to make, and he would have been following the line of thought of Dr. Rothbard.
Thanks to CSPAN for allowing Dr. Paul 30 uninterrupted minutes to spread his message.
I have a suggestion for the CFL staff: I think it would be great to get Dr. Paul and Peter Schiff together to field questions submitted by CFL members. Their combined insight is certainly worth its weight in gold, and I'm sure it would bring added traffic to the site.
Dr. Paul had a rational, logical response to every question. I think many of the callers where illinformed as to what 'real' history is. Moreover, as the last last caller commented on government NOT being the problem, she neglected the fact that everything that has happened in the past affects the future. In other words, what some individuals did over a hundred years ago in a deregulated market affects us today. We don't need to regulate the market and cause inefficiency, we need to deregulate and punish those that show negligence in their action. Great example is corporate taxes and Sarbanes-Oxley.
... But who screened those callers!? Seriously, they were all bad, that one from Michigan was just embarrassing and that last caller... What planet has she been living on?
Congressman Paul was awesome!! Whoever was screening those calls either had an agenda or should be fired...Some of them were just absurd.
And I agree with Dr. Paul, the country is going to need to get a job if we keep this spending up. But where will we live when the country goes to work?
It was such a pleasure to listen to Dr Paul talk, without all the interruptions. And he was given time to give detailed answers. Lot's of good information!
Great interview. He answered the questions directly, slowly, and thoroughly. Sometimes he rushes to say everything he wants to say in shorter interviews, but this one was outstanding.
These die hard Dems remind me so much of the celebrity puppets from "TEAM AMERICA"
the The corporations will start acting all…corporationeeee and then the republicans will be all like “hell NO” and that’s getting in the way of change, and interfering with the change I believe in and that soooooo like the corporations!!!!!!
I wish people would shut up, and actually educate themselves about whats going on, and stop all the persistent regurgitation of utter crap out of their non-thinking mouths. But I know I’m asking way tooooooo much here.
just because your able to declair the side your on, does not mean you have any idea about what that side is for.
tacitus7 wrote: "posters "jabowery and dewind" argue that Ron Paul is wrong on Monopolies, that government must intervene to break them down."
First of all, I did not say Paul is wrong on all monopolies, just on the network effect aka network externality. Second, I did not say that government must intervene -- I merely pointed out the reality of meritless profit arising from the network effect. Third, appealing to Rothbard for authority doesn't wash here. I cited a specific work by DeLorenzo which relies on Rothbard's approach, and I believe I adequately critiqued that work:
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_3.pdf
Please don't set up more strawman arguments or simply argue by repeated appeal to authorities I have already cited.
BTW: This issue of the network effect is fundamental enough in economics and central enough to the current economic crisis that if I were trying to make sure the C4L went nowhere in the current environment, I would make sure that Ron Paul identified "Microsoft" with the valid criticisms of the "natural monopoly" concept raised by Rothbard and DeLorenzo. Has someone been dropping the name "Microsoft" as an exemplar of a false "monopoly" with Ron lately? If so, who?
That was just fantastic. I'm going to show it to everyone I possibly can. We need to educate our family and friends about Dr. Paul and his wonderful ideology. I wrote C-SPAN to thank them. This is what I wrote =)
Hello C-SPAN and the Morning Journal!
I would just like to thank you all for having Dr. Paul on your show this morning. It is really encouraging to see such a brilliant Constitutionalist on your programming. The United States is upside down and backward and Dr. Paul is sending the correct message of where we should be going with this country. Thank you for letting him answer the questions presented to him without interruption. When I see him on main stream media shows, they only give him a few minutes and are constantly interrupting him. He is never really, fully able to get his message through on main stream media. Thank you for giving him a half hour to spread his wonderful message of smaller federal government, regulation of the FED, and Austrian economics (among his other views).
Please, have Dr. Ron Paul on you programming more often! His message is as sound as the delivery in which he gives it. The American people deserve to learn from Dr. Paul.
The last caller reflects a faction that has attached itself to a "predatory capitalism" theme. I'd be willing to bet she has read the book "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein. I've seen her ideas parroted before. The caller even disparaged Milton Friedman. Klein apparently blames Friedman's "radical free market policies" for all kinds of evil throughout the world.
On monopolies, Mises made the clearest points. He said that it is indeed possible for a monopoly to exist in a free market...but not a coercive monopoly. The latter type can only exist if supported by government. The former can exist only so long as it provides customers with a good product or service at a good price. If it falls down on quality or price, competitors will take advantage of the opportunity to enter the field and destroy the monopoly.
An early example of a non-coercive monopoly was the American Sugar Company, which at the beginning of the 20th century had 98% of the US sugar market. The feds brought suit against them under the Sherman Anti-Trust act, but lost in the Supreme Court, which said that having 98% of the market did not mean controlling that market. Within a couple of decades, the American Sugar Company had only a 20% market share. Competitors had found ways to undercut them in the meantime. Without government support, they were unable to maintain their virtual monopoly.
Some of you may also remember the cry in the late 1960s to break up GM. It was too big and powerful and had close to monopoly status. And where are they now?
The last caller reflects a faction that has attached itself to a "predatory capitalism" theme. I'd be willing to bet she has read the book "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein. I've seen her ideas parroted before. The caller even disparaged Milton Friedman. Klein apparently blames Friedman's "radical free market policies" for all kinds of evil throughout the world.
Sorry for the double post. Not sure how that happened.
Would someone please clarify the "network effect" in regards to monopolies and microsoft. I assume it means that a product can become so entrenched and intertwined in a market that it is almost impervious to threats of competition. The case of Microsoft is somewhat unique in that regard.
Since the US economy affects everyone else's with it, I think the rest of us should have the right to vote for the next US president. I'm Canadian and I was tempted to change citizenships just so I could vote Ron Paul. Too bad the media had to ruin everything by discrediting him. Wonder why? Hmm.
Thank You Dr. Ron Paul again for your Great Insight.
The answer is "Tax Cuts" for immediate relief to privately owned Businesses and the struggling American People.
Believe me, the Stimulus Act...May as well call it a Budget increase will not help until 2+ years down the road. IN FACT, $60 Billion Dollars of it will not be seen in the Economy until after the 2012 Election. It looks like this Socialist Bill will pass because of the Democratic Majority.
That would be insane. Help! US Senate when this Bill passes to you? Not only our Children, but our Great Grand-kids will be strapped because of this. I have this from good information. By 2020, if this Act is passed-to pay for it-Taxes will be 80% and Income will only be 20%.
If this Act is passed, IMMEDIATELY there will be almost (400) billion dollars of Interest attached to it.
As a Comparison, it is like when you buy a new Car. Before you even drive it off of the Lot, it depreciates by 30%. You never get that Money or Interest back.
BBC NEWS | Business | Obama says stimulus deal on track
"Yes we wrote the bill, yes we won the election," said Democrats leader and House Speak Nancy Pelosi.
I recognize that there are still some difference around the table and between the administration and members of Congress about particular details on the plan
President Barack Obama
This Budget Increase promises to bring new jobs for People. In Reality, these jobs will only be "Temporary Positions".
If a "Tax Cut" would happen, then we will be able to go to College or Internet Courses to have a Career, this is a big difference.
Rather than give it to the Un-employed or the Homeless, who many of which do not want to try, (Not all of them who have fallen on hard times, and they need to be supported) we would get a "Bigger Bang for the Buck”.
Yes RZich, I agree, the last caller most certainly has read Naomi Klein. I have a friend at work that sounds identical after reading "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism".
There is no reasoning with him now. Funny, I used to really value his opinion. Now I know anyone can be fooled into believing what they want to hear.
Are there factual things in the book, yes. Does government use shock doctrine to push an agenda, you bet. Does any of that have anything to do with true capitalism, of coarse not.
You are the man. I love ya buddy... no homo. This is the best interview in the past few days. At least this time you could eloquently defend you side.
The irony is the most intelligent arguement didnt hit the mainstream.
Posted 01/30/09 02:30 AM ToonMorris Leuven, Belgium
important!!!!
DR. PAUL HAS TO UNDERSTAND THAT SMALL INDEPENDENT UNIONS THAT PROVIDE SOCIAL SECURITY FOR IT'S MEMBERS ISN'T A BAD THING AS LONG AS IT IS DONE BY CHOICE AND OUT OF FREE WILL!! BECAUSE ELSEWAY SOCIALISTS ARE GONNA MISS ALL THE IMPORTANT POINTS MADE JUST ON THE WHOLE LEFT AGAINST RIGHT NONSENSE.
WITH DR PAUL ADVOCATING FREEDOM ,HE CAN'T BE AGAINST PEOPLE STARTING SOCIAL NETWORKS INDEPENDENTLY
I WAS BRAINWASHED INTO THE LEFT TO AND rON pAUL GOT TRUE TO ME SO THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!
EVEN COMMUNISM IS ALLRIGHT IF ALL PEOPLE PARTICIPATING ARE IN THE SYSTEM VOLUNTARELY AND CAN GET OUT WHEN THEY WANT.
AS THE C4L MOVEMENT NOWS POLITICS SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT FORCING ANY KIND OF (BELIEVE)SYSTEM ON ALL THE PEOPLE !!!
Common sense approach to our economy? Principals of free trade and austrian economics? These are old ideas stolen from men long long ago. Surely we need modern thinkers with modern ideas! Great men who ignore the problem and send the money right to ACORN, contraceptives, the Smithsonian, Endowment of Arts, ect, ect. We should listen more closely to people like Dr. Paul. He relays a message more needed now than ever. A message that has only gained more value with time, as we have moved further away from the constitution and a free market.
Posted 01/30/09 06:11 AM JanColdwater Staten Island, NY
LOVING EVERYTHING HE SAYS... but hey, I would like it if Ron could actually say, GET RID OF THE FED like he used to - not just regulate them and audit them.
RZich writes: "Would someone please clarify the "network effect" in regards to monopolies and microsoft."
Here's an analogy that will help: Imagine that Tim Paterson owned, not MS-DOS, but the rights to 60Hz AC electricity. 60Hz is a standard. It is even an "open" standard. Tim Paterson licenses the manufacture appliances that adhere to 60Hz and the manufacture of generators that supply 60Hz. There are others who, similarly, own other standards. One owns 50Hz, another 65Hz and another 70Hz. But Tim Paterson owns 60Hz. There are appliance manufacturers and generator manufacturers that adhere to the other standards and none yet adhere to 60Hz. There is plenty of competition but the market is pretty far from saturation.
But now enters a big player like, oh, IBM let's say. IBM decides to get into the appliance manufacture market. They look around for an AC standard to which to build their hardware and talk to a few owners of the standards out there but they've never even heard of Tim Paterson. However, there is this other guy named Bill Gates who has a mother with connections to the board of directors of IBM who hears that IBM is looking around for an electrical standard to which they will build their appliances. Bill's mother tells him of the opportunity and Bill rushes out to find an AC standard, any AC standard, that he can get his hands on cheaply. He finds Tim Paterson with his 60Hz and offers Tim Paterson $75,000 for ownership of 60Hz AC and then tells his mother, "Its a go! Set up the meeting in Boca Raton!" He meets with IBM's appliance manufacturing division in Boca Raton and, understanding the Network Effect, offers a very cheap license to IBM for 60Hz. They, being in a hurry to start moving their production lines, accept the offer and, make a huge splash in the market, almost immediately garnering the attention of everyone who is involved in electrical power in any manner whatsoever. After all, this is no little fly-by-night operation out of someone's garage in Silicon Valley -- this is The Standard they've all be waiting for!
Everyone starts cranking out generators at 60Hz to service IBM's appliances. Then others want to get in on the great new "60Hz industry" and manufacture "clones" of IBM's 60Hz appliances. Since there have been similar appliances at other AC standards, IBM has no protection from competition. After all, its appliances aren't really any better than the existing appliances, its just that they have set the industry standard among a bunch of standards of basically equal value -- except that 60Hz now represents a bigger market share -- so why build to any other standard?
Bill Gates sits back and collects license fees from everyone to become the world's richest man.
Now, here's where it gets _really_ nasty:
Some libertarians who have been decrying public sector rent seeking -- the creation of statutory monopolies for the benefit of political insiders -- have identified a bunch of specious arguments used by those public sector rent-seekers. They write volumes of papers on the corruption of political economies detailing the sordid behavior of these public sector rent-seekers and how there really was no need for these "public monopolies". These arguments are correct and anyone who is reasonable who reads their arguments can see the arguments are correct.
Then there develops a movement, indeed a culture, around the idea that public sector rent-seeking is evil, but rather than use the cumbersome phrase "public sector rent-seeking" people use the short-hand "monopoly" which is much catchier and, besides, everyone has played a game by that name as children. People in the culture find solace in each other midst the insanity of the political economy riddled with public sector rent-seeking. THEN someone calls Bill Gates a "monopolist", but there is obviously no statute that enshrined 60Hz as a standard! How dare they!
ToonMorris writes: "AS THE C4L MOVEMENT NOWS POLITICS SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT FORCING ANY KIND OF (BELIEVE)SYSTEM ON ALL THE PEOPLE !!! "
You hit the nail on the head there.
In essence you are saying that freedom of religion is the most fundamental human right of all -- being a meta-right -- the right to create, via social contract with other sovereign individuals, whatever rights you believe in.
That this must be so within any enlightened society is obvious from the first principles of medical ethics:
Never impose a treatment on others without their consent, and always verify your treatments with experimental control groups.
I agree when Ron Paul says only government creates monopoly. No matter how big Microsoft is, people can always boycott them. It's only when government forces them to buy their products is it a monopoly.
ToonMorris writes: "AS THE C4L MOVEMENT NOWS POLITICS SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT FORCING ANY KIND OF (BELIEVE)SYSTEM ON ALL THE PEOPLE !!! "
I feel that the main premise of the C4L movement is to return the Federal government to a Constitutional government. It follows that the secondary premise is the promotion of liberty/freedom.
I agree that we may not engage in any activity that could either be directly, or indirectly, considered to be forcing another individual, or group, to believe as we do.
There will always be many who refuse our "treatment." How can we justifiably continue under this premise if we will never have unanimous support? Is a republic similarly flawed?
ToonMorris:
I believe that people should be free to peacefully assemble and enter into social contracts with one another. The government's role is to enforce the contract. However, our government has taken its role a step further and legislated benefits for unions. This ultimately hurts the corporation and the individual's freedom to enter into social contracts of their own choosing.
"EVEN COMMUNISM IS ALLRIGHT IF ALL PEOPLE PARTICIPATING ARE IN THE SYSTEM VOLUNTARELY AND CAN GET OUT WHEN THEY WANT."
What you are suggesting may not be truly communistic. It sounds more like an insurance program or a private opt-in social security program. Provided they aren't offspring of the Federal government, I see nothing wrong with them politically.
You know that last woman really knocked the wind out of me. I really want to believe that people are waking up. I really want to believe that the economic strain that will be placed on the people will cause them to educate themselves. Yet I know through experience that in times of stress people resort to habit. The MSM has done a GREAT job of forming the thinking "Habits" of the America public. When the chips are down it's fear that will reign because fear has become the habit. They'll run to the government and gladly surrender their freedom, and the hope of EVER rising above the social lot their born in to, for any help to alleviate that fear. The Government will gladly answer the call by expanding further, and expanding the reach in to our lives and wallets. And when we're finally a socialist nation we'll be able to re write our charter and enter the world government we've been moving towards for years. This has been the programming for decades and is the habit that's at the core of the average American citizen. We're taught to fear the very freedom our forefathers fought for. That regulations and rules and letters of law will free us. That the government is working in our best interest and we should follow without question the brilliant people elected to guide us in to the future. We're made to pick party lines and fight over superfluous issues, all the while expending our strength and diverting our efforts. And most of all we're taught not to question the paradox of freedom through restrictions. To even defend it to the last breath. I want to believe this isn't a plan, but the one thing that's true is that these people ARE brilliant. And if that's true then they have to know what we're headed for and understand that you just can't tell the people we're now governed by a world bank, you have to make them want it. So the real question is how do we get people to WANT freedom and personal responsibility. And that's just the question I can't answer.
You know that last woman really knocked the wind out of me. I really want to believe that people are waking up. I really want to believe that the economic strain that will be placed on the people will cause them to educate themselves. Yet I know through experience that in times of stress people resort to habit. The MSM has done a GREAT job of forming the thinking "Habits" of the America public. When the chips are down it's fear that will reign because fear has become the habit. They'll run to the government and gladly surrender their freedom, and the hope of EVER rising above the social lot their born in to, for any help to alleviate that fear. The Government will gladly answer the call by expanding further, and expanding the reach in to our lives and wallets. And when we're finally a socialist nation we'll be able to re write our charter and enter the world government we've been moving towards for years. This has been the programming for decades and is the habit that's at the core of the average American citizen. We're taught to fear the very freedom our forefathers fought for. That regulations and rules and letters of law will free us. That the government is working in our best interest and we should follow without question the brilliant people elected to guide us in to the future. We're made to pick party lines and fight over superfluous issues, all the while expending our strength and diverting our efforts. And most of all we're taught not to question the paradox of freedom through restrictions. To even defend it to the last breath. I want to believe this isn't a plan, but the one thing that's true is that these people ARE brilliant. And if that's true then they have to know what we're headed for and understand that you just can't tell the people we're now governed by a world bank, you have to make them want it. So the real question is how do we get people to WANT freedom and personal responsibility. And that's just the question I can't answer.
Kyle: "I feel that the main premise of the C4L movement is to return the Federal government to a Constitutional government. It follows that the secondary premise is the promotion of liberty/freedom."
You've got the cart before the horse.
The Campaign for Liberty is primarily about the promotion of liberty/freedom. Since the Constitution as originally intended was to uphold "the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity", it follows that the secondary premis is the promotion of the original intent of the Constitution.
The Constitution is the "means" and not the "end". We should not confuse the two.
The original constitution is a remarkable example of implementing the "means", yet it was far from perfect. Individual Rights was implicitly implied, but not explicitly. It also contained easy loop holes for the Statists to take advantage off.
I think the goal must be the "end", Freedom! And the constitution as the "means", but we must not fool ourselves that it is the "end", for it is far from a complete document that secures our true freedom.
One thing though, it does not serve the purpose of liberty to attempt to defame communism, socialism, etcetera.
People like Felipe Coronel and Mumia Abu Jamal are advocates for systems like communism, but they hold the same values as we do.
Liberty and equity.
The question is ideological. And we have to admit that free-market capitalism is not a cure-all it cannot inherently promote justice, which is what the left is calling for, it can only give people the freedom to act justly.
Many of the people that we might insult as communists, might otherwise be our allies.
If, once freedom is established, they choose to order their LOCAL communities as communist societies, should they not have the freedom to do so?
I would like to see Ron and Peter Schiff team up with other respected free market economists and get their voice out there. The last video I saw of Ron he was being ganged up on by 3 other people. I think that David Tice would be an excellent pick.
Communism won't work because people are involved. Liberty with certain social restraint is still the best solution, just as Dr. Paul says.
As I remember the story IBM had a shot at CPM, but the guy kept them cooling their heels in the foyer, so they went back to Bill Gates. He called someone about the status of their DOS OS and the guy said he could have a demo soon. Gates went back and told IBM he would be in New York on a certain day. IBM offered to buy DOS, but Gates wisely preferred to license it. Along with the open architecture that is what made Microsoft. The third parties jumped on board and created a demand. Then Gates just started churning his accounts. Smart. But Microsoft is not a monopoly. Microsoft fined a company in California some time back for violations and the President threw Microsoft out and installed Linux.
As companies grow they become cumbersome and easy to compete against under most circumstances. I have made a pretty good living doing just that.
No one should ever begrudge someone else making money. He can't eat it. It has to be invested and that creates productive jobs and growing wealth for everyone.
Now giving money to government.........well that is destructive! Cheers.
You are correct in your assertion in a philosophical sense.
My comment was poorly worded. I should not have used primary/secondary in my description of C4L goals.
My honest interpretation is as DA521 suggests: The Constitution is the "means" and not the "end".
However, I don't believe that some would accept freedom as easily as would accept the Constitution. These are the few who have been brainwashed to believe that freedom is a negative. It might also have to do with the abstract notion of freedom versus the tangibility of Constitution document.
Does this follow the same logic as hiding a vitamin inside a brownie? Those that oppose us would rather the vitamin be a cyanide pill.
Perhaps this is a 'chicken before the egg' sort of cyclical dependency. Neither Constitution nor freedom are means nor ends per se. Freedom begets the Constitution, and the Constitution begets freedom.
---
filosophia writes: " It's only when government forces them to buy their products is it a monopoly."
Jabowery writes: Let's say the government passes a law that only Acme Apples can sell apples but doesn't force you to buy apples. Is that a "monopoly"?
---
A monopoly doesn't have anything to do with forcing people to buy a product. It means that the product is only available from a single vendor. Those that choose to purchase the product have only that one vendor to negotiate with.
From lord Wikipedia: "In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."
It doesn't require that people be forced to purchase the apple. You can buy oranges instead, but then you'd be guilty of mixing up (substituting) apples for oranges.
What I cannot understand is how supposedly intelligent people can continue to vote a straight line Democratic or Republican ticket and ignore the truth of what Congressman Ron Paul has to say about out economy and our goverment. These people are allowing the two party system to systematically destroy our country.
Throw the bastards out and institute term limits for ALL elected offices. Destroy the two party system and open our local and national elections to the PEOPLE of the United States. Minimize the governmental control over our personal lives. Bring our troops home from foreign bases and utilyze them to secure our own borders. Get rid of the Internal Revenue Service once and for all. Cut spending and minimize bureaucracy throughout the government. Quit borrowing trillions of dollars from foreign governments and quit printing more money without the backing of gold or silver.
Less government, less intererence in our lives, more freedoms and a return to a constitutional government is the only way WE THE PEOPLE are going to survive as a nation.
Ron Paul for President! 2012 !!! Maybe by then the American people will wake up, but I'm not holding my breath. Too many people think the Government is there to give them a living and take care of them from the cradle to the grave. In my humble opinion "Let Them Eat Cake"!
"And we have to admit that free-market capitalism is not a cure-all it cannot inherently promote justice"
What is justice according to you? Is not the value of your products as determined by voluntary exchange with other free uncoerced individuals amount to justice?
A free market is basically a condition and not a system. The condition that exchange is engaged voluntarily. That is only when both parties expect to make a gain (each according to their subjective judgment). Anything else requires "force", that is for one to force an exchange by involuntary means (so that one gains at the expense of another). It seems that if you're looking for justice, then only free markets can provide them. The collectivists don't understand this concept of voluntary exchange.
I'm sorry but communism, socialism, and whatever all are all based on the use of physical force. Non can be implemented to any degree without compulsion and coercion. All require subordinating the individual to the collective. they can use the word "liberty" all they want but that is nothing but euphemism. "Freedom is Slavery", Orwell, 1984
I don't see how they share the same values. It is true that most of them (as I believe) are confused about all of this so they do have good intentions, but do not confuse the true motive behind the real collectivists.
BillNM writes: "No one should ever begrudge someone else making money."
That's fine and dandy. So now let's say that, in a state of nature -- before laws against theft -- someone makes money by beating up other people and taking their money. There's no law against it. Is the person from whom the money was taken wrong to "begrudge" the other person his money?
My point is simply this: I don't "begrudge" Bill Gates going after this flaw in the laws of the land. I tried to do the same thing and failed. So he is the better exploiter. What I begrudge him is the same thing I begrudge anyone who exploits a flaw in society: When you've exploited it, you should use your resources so acquired to fix the flaw as a simple matter of decency.
jabowery, when I speak of making money I think in terms of voluntary exchange in a social setting. More often than not in this setting flaws are the result of government interference and unintended consequences.
Posted 01/30/09 12:50 PM Broadlighter Santa Cruz, CA
BlackMask, where we, libertarians differ from communists and socialists is that our leftist counterparts strive for social justice, whereas libertarians desire equal justice. It's the model of collectivism versus individualism. Freedom to the individualist comes from the exercise of one's natural rights, whereas freedom for the collectivist comes from the creation of someone's ideal of a humane society. To the sincere seeker of such virtues collectivism and individualism both offer a common outcome, but politicians who wish to use the force of law to achieve that outcome end up taking us in the opposite direction. Politicians tend to think more in terms of collectivism and naturally lend themselves toward Marxian/Fabian methodologies. I personally have few qualms with collectivism on a very small scale as in tribes or small communities. On a larger, more macro-economic scale collectivism opens itself to all kinds of moral hazard and tyranny because of the distance between the power centers and individuals.
Individualism can work as long as individuals take responsibility for themselves. The hazard becomes emminent when we take our freedoms for granted.
He is completely correct. However, he speaks too clearly and too frankly to be a true politician which is why he didn't get the nomination for the GOP.
Posted 01/30/09 3:45 PM PaulBot Fox River Grove, IL
I caught Dr. Paul playing the politics game BIG TIME. When he said he was pleasantly surprised that the Repubs were gaining their senses by NAYing this bill, he was holding his tongue.
Normally, he would try to explain how the two parties are basicaly the same and that there is really only an illusion of power shifting between two hard-core opponents. He knows that kind of talk is too shocking for the average sheeple to handle in their pea-sized brain. So he just acted like perhaps it is true that a big transformation may be coming over the Repugs.
They are comfortable being conservatives all of a sudden because their votes are not needed to get HORRIBLE legislation over the hump. When their votes are needed, plenty of these spineless, gritless, souless repugs will vote YES. Look at the 2008 stimulus for your ultimate example.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
