pssst.... LJ... marichiko's a girl...

details.

So Radar, point out how exactly I am wrong then. By me I mean me, every Central Banker on earth, mainstream economics and Freidman himself of course.

I'm curious, lets have a bit of discourse in detail here, how exactly is it that the unpredictable nature of velocity of circulation doesn't mess with monetarism?

The cornerstone here is MV = PT (the Fisher equation) where where M is the stock of money, V is velocity of circulation, P is the average price level and T is transactions in the economy. I assume, since you have a superior understanding to every economist on earth that you're familiar with all these concepts. Now, it's fairly obvious for this to work that V and T are both constant, correct? At least in the short term. Thus any change in M leads to a direct change in P. That is the backbone Quantity Theory of Money on whose shoulders monetarism rests.

The first challenge to this came, unsurprisingly from Keynes: Increases in the money supply seem to lead to a fall in the velocity of circulation and increases in real income, which threw things a little out of wack. Friedman's response was that they only moved in stable, predictable ways. Of course when it actually came time to put these ideas into practice, they failed, miserably and Freidman conceded the theory was a failure.

Rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'nanananyou'rewrongandi'mright' how about engaging me here, no, really, explain how Friedman, Nobel prize winner and all is wrong about his own theory.


I love the way Radar is so sure he's right he's willing to go against the will of the people (and cause many deaths) to impose his ridiculous 'state' on them. Maybe your government should stop spending money to fingerprint Swiss tourists and spend a little more keeping an eye on their home-grown nutters.

Yeah, I know. Guess I should pick on somebody my own size. Didn't mean to intimidate you, Radar.;)

I'm still waiting for my historical citation of how the disabled were better off before Social Security Disability and Medicare...

Step in line, Patirck. I think you are right in place between Jaguar waiting for a response to his questions on economics and me wanting to hear about literacy rates and personal freedoms in the 19th century. Radar appears to be great at threats and rather short on logic. I'd prepare myself for a long wait if I were you.

But when it comes to random insubstantiated insults, well, if elected we could run the whole economy on hot air.

You know Marichiko, sometimes Radars zeal annoys me. And I disagree with many of his conclusions. However, your tagline suggests that you're on the fringe yourself, or just enjoy 'stirring things up'.

So I'll let you children play and see if anything pops up that we adults might find useful.

Hey, I'm glad someone's awake around here. Of course I've been enjoying "stirring things up." Radar and his ilk make for such irresistable targets. I'll grant that he has not been much of a mental challenge. In fact I'll probably leave this debate to be carried on by others because I'm becoming bored with the lack of effective response.

Milton Friedman believes we need to go back to a fiat based currency and we should never have left the gold standard. He believes inflation needs to be eliminated, not regulated. And all of the Nobel prize winning economists I mentioned know that the market regulates itself without any government intervention. Try again.

The most ignorant the person the more likely they are to vote for government funded (theft) social programs. And since they'll also have a better education, they will laugh at you like I, and all of your intellectual superiors (the vast majority of the planet), do.

Before social security disability and medicare, an average family could afford to go to a doctor, doctors actually made housecalls, and doctors weren't paid with stolen money from resentful people. Government meddling has raised the cost of healthcare through the roof and made it unaffordable. Medical advances (which are due to private enterprise not because of government) have made healthcare superior now, but unaffordable for the elderly and disabled. If we take government out of the system the cost of healthcare for these people would be a fraction of what it currently costs. Here's a couple of articles for you.


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22171

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=28477

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=28393

I have answered the economics questions, and literacy rates among those who attended schools in the 19th century were FAR higher than those of today's children educated in public schools. The problem is some people want to force people to attend school even though not all children should attend schools. You can not force a person to learn something as is evident from the huge number of kids who graduate and are still illiterate.

If you want to know about personal freedoms (civil rights for women and minorities aside because those were not brought about by government but by the people), even into the 20th century, in 1912 you could send your 10 year old daughter to the store to get you some heroin. The streets weren't filled with criminals as they are now. People weren't getting murdered in a hail of bullets by drug dealers. People pretty much lived their lives they way they wanted and allowed others to do the same (except for a few insane religious zealots called the temperance movement who put "god" on our money, in our oaths, and created organized crime in America by pushing for alcohol prohibition).

In short, people had better healthcare (in terms of service, not technology) at lower costs, superior education, and far more personal freedoms.

This from someone who has failed every mental challenge. Nice approach though. You're using the "I claim to win no matter how many times you defeat me with cold hard facts so you are a loser" technique. I'm sure that works well among the others who are doped up beyond rational thought, but it doesn't work too well here among those who don't know whether to laugh at your ignorance because you are a clown, or cry because they pity your unbelievable stupidity.

OK, I’ll answer my own question. In 1895, the percentage of children 5-19 attending school was .62. In 1920, it was .68 and in 1945, it was .76 – an increase of 14% from before income taxes to after. The percentage of the population who voted were 18.4%, 25.1%, and 37.8% respectively for those same years. The facts speak for themselves. You can’t site facts or data to back your position, I’ve have no further interest in arguing it with you.

The number attending school is irrelevant. The number who attended school were far more literate than those who attend public schools now. The only relevant measure is in how many who did attend school graduated with a decent education, not in the number who put their butts in seats.

Voting is another red herring. Nice try, but this isn't high school debte. Even there you'd be beaten by the kids on the short bus. Statistics don't prove anything because anyone can find statistics to try to prove their point and most of them are made up. You have brought up irrelevant ones that have nothing at all to do with our discussion.

The FACTS show that people had more freedom, superior education, and better service in healthcare.

You have no interest in debating with me because you keep losing. Run along child.

I second that! Maybe he should be considered a...I believe it's called: "a person of interest"? The new "axis of evil" perhaps? ;)

HERE! HEAR!:thumb:

Oh right. The FACTS. Consider us all convinced by FACTS. The ones you arbirattily spout on the spot.

You just refuse to actually get into the guts of any of your facile arguements, refuse to present detailed analysis, references, quotations or statistics to back of any of what you say. I'm not debating what Friedman thinks, I'm merely stating monearism is dead, a failure and disowned by Friedman himself.

What the hell is yout point? Explain, please, in some detail, how monetarism is not deeply flawed and having been tested, shown to be a failure, or, failing that, how you are in fact (despite ample evidence to the contorary) advocating something else (Mercantilism wouldn't shock me)?

Ah. Charity hospitals. Yeah, they're real plentiful around here. Oh, wait...no they aren't. In fact, there are exactly *none*. And no matter how cheap it gets, I seriously doubt that my son could afford it on $400 a month. Come to think of it, he wouldn't have his job at all, because the whole reason he works there in the first place is because of a tax credit program offered to the employer from the government.

I have reasonably extensive experience with both the health care system and the private agencies available to assist the disabled and indigent. Do you? So far the *only* services my son has been able to get were *all* paid for by State and Federal dollars. I have investigated other avenues, because his need for services is great. There simply are none available that meet his need for an income and for medical care. I have about 12 years of experience with this sort of thing at this point, so I know whereof I speak.

As for the supposed improvement in the current situation if taxation were removed, well, If there is no economic incentive to operate services for and provide financial support to the disabled and underemployed/unemployable, then those services will not increase, they will decrease. Since the unemployed and unemployable have no money, then where is the financial incentive for anyone to operate such a business? Oh, yes! Charity! Once taxation ceases, people will run willy nilly to their local church or relief organization, and make their coffers overflow with unprecedented bounty!

Let's look back about 100 years and see what charity institutions were like. They were dumping grounds, a place where people were parked to die. There were far fewer medical providers, psychiatric providers, physical therapists, etc, because, well...they couldn't make any money doing it for a charity institution. The facilities were overcrowded, and could not serve everyone who needed them. I noted an absence of such information in the articles you suggested, BTW. This is probably because the whole concept you are espousing is mostly concerned with people looking out for #1, and treating the unfortunate among us like #2.

As it is, my son lives a reasonably normal life (compared to what it *could* be), and it is *totally* due to the same programs that would cease to exist were it not for the Social Security and Medicare funds that support them. Even the meager busboy job he works for sixteen hours a week to earn the $400 per month was obtained through a program to employ the disabled.

Without taxation, we become a country where only the strong survive. Is that part of the "better" sociological picture that were supposed to ogling, here?

We've already got that. We are screwed.

Your quality and range of public services is directly related to your rate of taxes. You want to live in a nice place, it costs you money. Does it benefit you to "pay" to assist your neighbor in a time of need? yes. Pay now or pay later. The key is to invest well. I guess I am a socialist..or Norwegian wannabe. enjoy.

Bah! Home schoolin' aint always the best. It depends on the kid and the instruction. Wasnt that Mom that killed her sons with a rock to the head, homeschoolin?
Hey, Public school has its serious problems, look at the volume, but there are kids learning too. There are some damn good teachers and students in public schools, they dont get the press though. I have seen the bad and the great.

And, like 1910 was a golden year? Lots of muckraking going on for such a "happy" time. come on.

And for your taxes..The Institute of Museum and Library Services , a federal agency, funds (through grants) libraries and yes...museums. Lots and lots for digitization/preservation projects. go surf some now. Thats good news for public and home schools and all youse too.

I know, I know, but public school does turn out kids who can read and want to learn. Just not as many as I would like and far more than would be cranked out by the non-tax version Radar is espousing.

Of course we are led by example. I can't wait until some teacher tells her children about the importance of reading and being curious about things and have some kid come back about how the President doesn't read the newspaper.

AND involvement. If your services aren't serving, find out why. Be proactive in demanding the public be served as well as they are paying for.

If only.

For example, the District of Columbia spends more (and obviously taxes more) to educate a student than any state in the union. And, in a revelation sure to surprise absolutely no one, DC students are easily the least educated students in the country.

I love the way you attempt to justify robbery because it is teh "will of the people". If one person robs you with a gun, it's robbery. If a gang of 10 people rob you it's still robbery. And if 250 million people rob you at the point of a gun and call themselves "government" it is STILL robbery and claiming that it's "the will of the people" doesn't change shit.

That's an absolute lie. Milton Friedman has never "disowned" the idea of going back to a gold or other fiat-based standard of money; not ever and you're a liar if you claim he did. The gold standard never failed. Not once. If you claim it did, you are once again a liar.

What are you smoking and where can I get it?

The while the range of services (not that they provide actual service) is related to how much stolen money the government can get its hands on, the quality is not. Private schools cost on average half of what the government spends per student per year and they have a far superior education. In fact you can not name a single government run social service that can't be run cheaper, provide superior service, and use less overhead than a similar privately funded non-profit charity.

The number is students is debatable. But the quality of education is not. Under the theft-funded system you promote, there are childen moved up and who graduate who are illiterate or very near to it. They can't name the vice-president, state capitals, etc. In a word they, like those who support the current public school system, are morons. Under the privately funded, more efficient, and superior school system I propose, the students who graduate will be able to compete globally with those anywhere else on earth. In my system education isn't taken down to the lowest common denominator.

So the question is do we want an entire nation of people educated at the level of a burger flipper as your system produces, or do we want the best engineers, doctors, and scientists on earth as my system would produce?

You got that right.

Some Numbers


0
Number of New York City 8th graders deemed "proficient" on last year's end-of-summer-school reading exam.

78
Percent of those who took the test who were promoted to the 9th grade.

It'll be three years for me in June. Once I got a basic understanding about the "system", things were a bit better, but it's still no picnic. Plus, with some programs, you have to fit an income requirement...basically, have one foot in the poverty gutter, which (thankfully!) I am not, but damn, some type of assistance is still needed!

Quote:

As for the supposed improvement in the current situation if taxation were removed, well, If there is no economic incentive to operate services for and provide financial support to the disabled and underemployed/unemployable, then those services will not increase, they will decrease. Since the unemployed and unemployable have no money, then where is the financial incentive for anyone to operate such a business? Oh, yes! Charity! Once taxation ceases, people will run willy nilly to their local church or relief organization, and make their coffers overflow with unprecedented bounty!

:rolleyes: Maybe he can empty HIS wallet into the pot and support everyone. Pssftttt!

Quote:

Let's look back about 100 years and see what charity institutions were like. They were dumping grounds, a place where people were parked to die. There were far fewer medical providers, psychiatric providers, physical therapists, etc, because, well...they couldn't make any money doing it for a charity institution. The facilities were overcrowded, and could not serve everyone who needed them. I noted an absence of such information in the articles you suggested, BTW. This is probably because the whole concept you are espousing is mostly concerned with people looking out for #1, and treating the unfortunate among us like #2.

*applause* A-fucking-men!

Quote:

As it is, my son lives a reasonably normal life (compared to what it *could* be), and it is *totally* due to the same programs that would cease to exist were it not for the Social Security and Medicare funds that support them. Even the meager busboy job he works for sixteen hours a week to earn the $400 per month was obtained through a program to employ the disabled.

That's good that your son has his job and is able to take advantage of the programs. I'll be looking into one pretty soon myself (Office of Vocational Rehab). Seems as though this will be my last chance to get any type of work. We'll see.

I'm sorry you can't get your head around basic ecoomic terms Radar. I said Friedman disowned monetarism, which I defined above, if you bothered to actually read what I wrote that. I did not for example, say "Friedman thinks the gold standard sucks" or "The Gold Standard Failed". Thus your origional statement, implying that if we stopped, or limited printing of money, inflation would go away and the economy would be perfectly stable, which is a narrow at best understanding of monetarism in the first place is itself invalid. I don't understand how the gold standard came into that.

As for whether Friedman did in fact disown monetarism, see my attached quote, from the Financial Times. That dodgy little newspaper.

Printing more money without anything to back it is THE ONLY CAUSE OF INFLATION. Nothing else causes inflation other than increasing the amount of money in circulation. That's an indisputable fact and every Nobel Prize winning economist I mentioned including Milton Friedman agrees with that statement.

And I don't promote mercantilism. I obviously promote free market capitalism.

No question Friedman would agree that oversupply causes inflation no matter what the money is backed by.

Keynesian economists believe inflation can occur independently of monetary conditions.

If though, for a minute I follow the monetarists line, it has been well proven that targetting that relationship has been a failure and as I said, Milton Friedman himself agreed only last year.

Do too keep in mind there is a good reason central banks set specific inflation goals rather than zero, offical price indicies have a long history of overstating inflation and everyone prefers a touch of inflation to deflation.

Bullshit. You've chosen to live in a democratic state where clearly the majority support income tax, if they didn't they'd vote in someone who didn't. By making that choice (and noone's putting a gun to your head are they), you choose to accept that nation's laws. Whether or not the constitution allows it or not is utterly irrelevant. It's called realpolitik, something all your ideas lack sorely. Don't like it move somewhere that suits you, don't try and claim it's moral to overthrow a democratically elected state because YOU don't like the laws.

I've made active choices not to live in countries for reasons of law before, you don't see me say, advocating armed overthrow of France for not allowing public photography.

It's called the tyranny of the majority, if you don't like it, move somewhere where you are the majority or a dictatorship where you won't have the choice anyway.

Friedman has said trying to return America to a fiat based standard has been unsuccessful. Mostly due to the uneducated people who think "managed inflation" is a good thing. I'd take deflation if it meant we'd have something other than the worthless promises of private bankers and government to back our money and so would Mr. Friedman.

Bullshit. People are under the impression that they have no power with regard to getting rid of it, and many think if they didn't get government handouts, they wouldn't be able to survive (see some of the Cellar posters).

It doesn't matter if every single person other than myself chooses to take my income, it doesn't give them a right to take it. Democracy does not make right. One person's rights are more important than the desires of a billion people.

Yes someone is putting a gun to my head. The government is saying they will rob me and if I resist, men with guns will come to take me away. You still have not proven any difference between being robbed by a gang of thugs and income taxation. It doesn't matter if there are 250 million people and they call their gang "government", it's still robbery and you can't escape that fact.

The following sentence is the biggest joke of all...

LOL

Nothing could be more relevant. I am under NO OBLIGATION WHAT-SO-EVER to follow unconstitutional laws PERIOD. (see Marbury vs. Madison).

I don't like it and I am not leaving. I will spill blood to return America to the Constitutional republic we started with. I mean that with all sincerity and honesty. YOU stop acting like something is morally correct just because it was voted on in a democracy.

Let's say 51% of the population has dark hair and the other 49% have light hair. In your twisted and warped view, it would be perfectly ok if the 51% voted to steal everything from the 49%, and execute them because it was a democracy and they voted on it. But the simple and inescapable truth is the 51% or even 99.9999% of the population has no authority or right to even bring it up for a vote. It's not up for discussion. Human rights are unalienable and as immutable as gravity. You can't vote on whether or not you have a right to steal someone else's property, and to suggest you can is beyond stupidity.

Hey I suppose the majority of the people on your block decided your house would look better painted with purple and orange stripes, you would go ahead and paint it that way right? Because a majority said you must. DUH!!! What if they voted and said you must shave your head? Would you comply? No. Why? Because nobody on earth (including the combined population of earth) has any authority or right to tell you what you must or must not do with your hair, or your body, or the fruits of your labor.

Don't like it? Move the hell out of MY country to somewhere that wasn't based on natural law and natural rights. But America was, so move it.

If anyone stands in the way of my plan of eliminating every single unconstitutional part of government and returning America to a Constitutional republic, I will kill them without a second thought in the defense of my rights, and the rights of other Americans. Some Americans might not want to be personally responsible for their lives, and they are free to ask someone to run it for them. I'm sure they will find no shortage of volunteers, but I will not allow anyone, no matter how great the majority...and for the record the majority of Americans DO NOT support income taxes and would gladly stop paying them today if they weren't scared of being jailed for doing so.....in other words extortion.

Go ahead, try to make me sound like a whacko because I said I'd kill in my own defense and the defense of my country. I know what you'll do before you do.

So what you are saying is any free American who doesn't believe in what you believe in deserves to die? So how does this make you any better then the current government? You are real big on saying how bad the government is because they are "putting a gun to your head" and making you pay taxes, but then you go on to say you will kill anyone who doesn't go along with your ideas. How does that make any sense?

I don't think anyone needs to "try" and make you sound like a wacko, your doing just fine all on your own.

My ideas are not mine alone. They are the ideals this nation was founded on. In essence they are EVERYTHING that is American. Others are free to believe anything they choose, but if they act on those beliefs and try to steal what I have earned I will kill in the defense of myself, my property, my loved ones, and my country. Notice I used the word DEFENSE. It is THEY who are the ones INITIATING violence to rob me, and my countrymen. I would only respond with violence in defense. It makes sense to use violence in your defense when others are using it to rob you.

I fully support your right to believe anything you choose, but if you try to legislate the theft of my property, you will face the consequences associated with stealing from me. If the government of America suddenly made a law that said nobody would be allowed to leave the country and that your family must be killed for an arbitrary reason such as your hair color. Would you happily march into the ovens or would you kill those who attempted to harm you? This is no different. Our property is an extension of ourselves. It is the result of our labor which is part of our body. Violating our property is no different than violating our persons.

The funny part is I'm one of very few on this thread that doesn't sound like a whacko.

For real! I thought he was all about not infringing on the rights of others, but he's ready to shoot to kill the first person that dares to disagree with his views...nice. :rolleyes:

Yep..."person of interest", indeed. Typical madness.

i'll not pretend that i have read the entire thread.....yet...i will eventually, but having seen this debate take place before, I'd like to add a little something.

Radar is NOT nuts. his views are right on. what he says about the PHILOSOPHY of Libertarianism is unarguably true.

What I see is a tendency to argue his point to the extreme. If this country had stayed true to the core beliefs espoused in the constitution from the beginning, we would all be libertarians. However, the practical application of changing what we have today back to what we SHOULD HAVE HAD is impractical and potentially catastrophic. This does not give us the right to shout the man down when he points out glaring deviances of our current systems. If he seems like a whacko to you, that's fine, but keep in mind, without people like Radar, we would all be led around by our noses because we dont care enough to risk our personal images and the comfort of knowing that we play well with others. Hell, we'd still be English...and I know no one wants that, right?

I say...radar, keep calling foul if you see foul...but....I hope that if you really DO have political aspriations, you can appreciate the positions of those that would argue with you, and realize that when you make extreme statements, you damage your credibility. It's a fine line to walk, being an activist and not a nutter.

I give you points for your passion if nothing else.

I'll further debate that things were "more free" at an earlier time of the nation. That's one of those things that's simply untrue at its face by modern standards, for example; how could you say it was "more free" when slavery existed or before women got the vote? More free for some, incredibly unfree for others? How can any real legitimate comparison be made between such different periods of history?

Is strict constitutionalism "better" when it encourages things like prohibition to be written into the national document?

Hey, sounds like the voice of calm reason to me. There's plenty of precedent for people killing those who don't agree with them. Pol Pot killed intellectuals, Hitler killed Jews, Stalin killed quite a few dissidents.

If you are an example of what Libertarian thought is all about, I think Homeland Security should be notified about you and any potential followers you might have in your Libertarian cult. It is pointless to argue with a homicidal maniac. I hope for your own safety, and, most especially for the safety of others, that you are locked up quickly.

No, you don't have the faintest idea what I will do. You are, to put it bluntly, gone mad. God help you.

Ok, Marbury vs. Madison keeps getting slung around here like a lariat so I went and read it. Anybody else with some time on their hands and an interest can go look here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=5&page=137

Near as I can tell, MvM refers to the act of judicial review and the constitutionality of laws.

One question arises. Is anyone here a judge or assciated with the judiciary in any way?

I stood in front of one once for a parking ticket I shouldn't have gotten. He dismissed the ticket.

Does that count?

No, that just means that you're lucky.

First of all, a right not to be subject to income tax is not in the goddamn bill of huamn rights, we're not talking about fucking genocide here, it's tax.

Jesus fucking christ.
Read.

'The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success.' He added: 'I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did.' (FT, 7 June 2003).

People can vote. People can vote for someone that doesn't support income tax. End of fucking story. The fact they don't, and reasons why is irrelevent, if they want, they can, they don't. Adovacting doing it with a means you clearly think YOUR view is more important than everyone else's, thus really, you have no right to call yourself someone that beleives in a democratic state. Democracy doesn't go for 'right' because one persons right is another's wrong. It goes for the platform the majority of people support, thus reflecting what the majority think is right. Not perfect but it could be a lot worse. We could be living under a dictator who thinks that taxation is more important than human life.

Strict Constitutionalism doesn't allow the government to exceed its legitimate authority by prohibiting what people do or don't choose to consume. Strict Constitutionalism never includes using the Constitution to limit rights, only to limit the powers of government.

I hope for the safety of my country idiots like you are sent packing to socialist countries where your twisted views will be more accepted.

One does not need to be a judge to make a cursory judgment of the Constitutionality of a given law and one does not need to wait for judicial review before acting on that determination. If a law is unconstitutional in its face, we are not required to abide by it even if a judge has not reviewed it. For instance if Congress said that all people over the age of 50 must be put to death because they were too much of a burden on the economy. One would not have to wait for a review of the law before telling Congress to screw off.

Yes we are talking about human rights. In fact we're talking about the most sacred of human rights....self-ownership. I own myself. I own my life, mind, body, and labor. Nobody else has any claim to these. Not even the combined population of earth. And because I own all of these things outright and nobody else has a claim to them, I also own the fruits of my labor totally and completely and nobody else has any valid claim to them. When government takes the fruits of my labor, they are turning me into a slave. It's not like slavery or theft, it IS slavery and theft. You have still failed to prove how armed robbery and slavery are different. And you will always fail because they are the same thing. It doesn't matter if 1 person, 10 people, or 250 million people who call themselves “government” rob you; it's still robbery. And those people have no legitimate claim to the fruits of another persons labor no matter how many vote on it.

Inflation is caused by an increase in the quantity of money and by NOTHING...I REPEAT.....N-O-T-H-I-N-G ELSE!!! If Mr. Friedman is saying the target has not been a success, it only means that he has not been successful in convincing people, not that he was incorrect about the relationship.

MY opinion IS more important than those of everyone else when it comes to MY property. NOBODY has any claim to what I've earned but me. Not you, not a hundred of you, not a hundred million of you. And you're correct. I do not advocate a democracy. I am happy the U.S.A. is not a democracy. It is a democratic republic where the rights of individuals are more important than the desires of millions.

The people have no right to vote on the color of your hair, whether you will procreate, or how much of your money they are entitled to. If they put it on a ballot, they are violating their limited authority.

Government may not do anything that we as individuals don't have the right to do without government. If you are on an island with no government and you grow your own vegetables, and someone comes over and eats those vegetables without your permission, they have stolen from you. You did the work to cultivate them and they at them. They were not entitled to those vegetables regardless of how hungry they are and you are not entitled to go to their home and take what they have earned through their labor either. Because you are not entitled to take the fruits of another person's labor without their permission, what makes you think you can give this power to the government?

The limited powers of government are derived from the consent of the individuals who grant it power. As an individual you have no claim to the fruits of another persons labor therefore neither do 10 people, or 100 people, or 100 million people. You can't give a power to government that you do not have in the first place.

You idiot. See the following article for detailed information on Friedman's retraction.

The Guardian

It may be from the guardian but it quotes the Financial Times, where the quote and article was origionally published, but I can't access that without paying a heck of a lot of money.

Friedman admitted monetarism was a failure. A tried and tested failure. A failure in the US and a failure in the UK. Period. It was not a success, it did not work. Get the hell over it.

Goddamn. I wish I knew a few ex-slaves right now, I'm sure they'd be lining up to kick you ass for equating income tax to slavery.

Ok. I see your logic now, it wasn't very clear before.
But surely then if say, one person doesn't agree murder should be illegal, the government has no right to make murder illegal and under the same arguement as you has some kind of moral 'right' to take up armed resistance because he didn't give his concent?

If you found some with an education such as Frederic Douglas, they would agree with me.

As an individual, you have no right to take the life of others unless it is in your own defense. You have no right to murder others and you do have a right to defend yourself even with deadly force or to allow your agents to defend you so yes, individuals CAN give this power to government because it is a right that individuals would have even without government.

Government has one purpose, to DEFEND our rights, not to limit them, not to define them, and not to infringe upon them. You do not have the right to murder, but others do have the right to live; case closed. You do not have the right to steal what others have earned, but others do have the right to keep the fruits of thier labor; case closed.

As far as Friedman goes, he STILL agrees that inflation is caused by nothing other than the government increasing the supply of money and the article in question does not define "monetarism" the same was the dictionary does.

monetarism: A theory holding that economic variations within a given system, such as changing rates of inflation, are most often caused by increases or decreases in the money supply

This has NEVER FAILED, not in the UK, not in America, not anywhere on earth. Inflation = increase in the supply of currency. Money is something of value like gold. Currency (the paper printed or coins minted) has no value and is supposed to represent money. When you have no increase in the amount of money, but a large increase in the amount of currency, you get inflation. This is indisputable by you, or anyone else on the planet.

Citation please.

As a constitutional scholar you should have a handy referrence for something that seems to be so central to your ideology.

Marbury vs. Madison is in full agreement with my statement, but being that case law is irrelevant when it comes to the Constitution and that the Constitution (the highest law in the land) was created by the people to keep tight control on government, it is the people who have the ultimate judgment over whether or not a law is unconstitutional in its face.

The role of government is to defend our rights, but let's see what the founders thought of this...


Clearly the people (individuals) have the right to make the determination of whether or not government has become destructive towards life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness and as such they have the right to determine whether or not government has abided by the strict limitations of its powers enumerated in the Constitution. Rights are the opposite of privileges. Rights are what we do without asking. This means we do not require permission to make that determination from judges or any other part of government. Government is our creation and we the individual people of America are the masters while government is our servant.

Also if you want a Constitutional reference, feel free to look at the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution. The 9th says that those rights listed in the Constitution by no means are the only rights that people have and the 10th says that any rights NOT listed belong to the people. The right to determine whether a law abides by the Constitution is not listed, so it is therefore a right of the people.

Do you believe that gold has a fixed value? Wouldn't gold mines cause inflation?

Ah but Radar, the relationship between money supply and inflation is a funny beast, and herein line the problem. Velocity of Circulation. It's what they discovered when they actually tried it. Due to the unpredictable nature of velocity of circulation targetting inflation with controls on money supply proved hamfisted.

I could have sworn I said as much 5 pages ago.

Says who exactly.
I would like to know where these rights come from, who defines them, who established them? This is a real question.

Gold doesn't have a fixed value, but the term "dollar" originally was a measurement. It equalled 1/20th of an ounce of gold. Dollar should still equal 1/20th of an ounce of gold. The buying power of that gold depends on the scarcity of gold. It would take one huge gold mine to change the value of gold globally.

I don't think the velocity with which currency is circulated requires more currency to be minted, although it may cause a need for more sturdy currency; coins instead of paper for instance.

The short answer is "rights come from nature". We're born with them. They can't be bought, sold, traded, taken or given away. Rights are as immutable as gravity. Even if every person on earth voted for gravity to disappear, it would not because it is a natural law. Natural rights are also part of natural law. You have the right to life. Someone may kill you but they have not taken away your right, they have only violated it. You have a right to your property. Someone may steal your property but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to own it. You may live in a country that doesn't protect natural rights or one that actually violates them, but that doesn't mean you don't have the rights.

Some would argue that mineral rights are rights that can be sold, but the term "mineral rights" itself is a misnomer. The actual right in question is the right of ownership. When you own something, it is yours to do with as you wish, whether you do something good with it or something destructive. If I own land, it is mine. I own the land itself. When someone buys so-called "mineral rights" they are not buying rights, they are making a contract with the owner of the land to have permission to keep all minerals on the owner's land but they still have no ownership of the land itself.

Natural rights are a self-evident subset of natural law. They were so important among the founders that they used them as a basis for our government.

If you would like to read a couple of essays on the subject that are far more eloquent than anything I could write I'll post a couple of links. Keep in mind these were written 100+ years ago so while the language might be different, the principles within them are timeless and as fresh today as the day they were written. I'll give you links to pdf files so you can print these and read them at your leisure.

Natural Law by Lysander Spooner

The Law by Frederic Bastiat

I've read these, at your request, and I don't think that they'll find them any more satisfying than I did.

I am with Jag on Friedman's new take on monetarism. He has changed his view. Most interesting. Another big chink in the L-ism armour, as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.wanniski.com/PrintPage.asp?TextID=2694

You could also read John Locke, Peter McWilliams, Thomas Jefferson, or any number of others who promote natural rights or you could just ask yourself who owns you.

Do you own yourself? If not, who owns you? When you own something it is yours to do with as you please. You don't require permission to do anything you choose with it. You can destroy it, give it away, or do something great with it. The choice is yours.

To say you don't own yourself is to say that others have more of a claim on your life than you do. If you say that you do not own yourself, you have no right to complain or resist if someone else enslaves you, beats you, takes your property, or even kills you. After all, if you don't own yourself, you don't own your mind so your not allowed to think for yourself. If you don't own your mouth, you may not speak freely. If you don't own your body, you may not procreate or do anything other than what your owner tells you to do. If you don't own yourself, you don't own your labor and you don't own the fruits of that labor.

You can't have it both ways. Either you own yourself or someone else does. If you own yourself, you own your body, mind, and labor and the fruit of that labor and nobody else has any claim to them. They are yours to do with as you please. This means you have rights. You can't own something if you don't have rights.

If you are still unsatisfied, you are beyond any help I can offer you and I'll just refuse to entertain any other absurd questions you may ask.

Another big chink in the L-ism armour, as far as I'm concerned.

Radar is extreme, yes, but I hope he doesn't turn all of you away from the general goals of all the moderate Libertarians out there (many of whom don't even know there's a word for what they feel about the government.) No, most of us don't think there's a need for a bloody revolution, or a complete and total removal of all income taxes and social programs--but seriously, do any of you think the government doesn't need to take at least three big steps back out of our lives? I feel we could certainly stand to have a smaller government, which is different from a complete stripping of it as Radar proposes.

A lot of Libertarian desires are perfectly reasonable. Don't let the logical extreme of any position keep you from examining it in a more realistic (moderate) setting.

clodfobble, I like you more with each post....

could we get a picture of you?

If I can find one... I don't have any on my computer here at work. You'll have to be patient.

I know, but watching Radar froth at the mouth is fun.

Radar is essentially right, it's the ideal and it's application and how he'd, apparently, like to see it come about at this point that is the issue.

See now I'm not sure. You could be making a joke. That would however imply you have a sense of humor. You could, on the other hand, simply not have read anything I've written (wouldn't come as much of a shock, you've avoided the point for pages) or simply have little or no real knowledge of economic terminology.

In case is it the latter I'll give you a brief definition:

Basically, Velocity of Circulation is the number of times money changes hands, it's technical definition is GNP divided by money supply. Since we're dealing with basics here I'll define GNP: Gross National Product, GDP + income from foreign investments - pay sent overseas by foreign workers. Mostly replaced by GNI in national accounts at any rate.

I've taken the essays, I'll read over them some time in the next few days and get back to you on that point.

Sorry, but I'm not the one who is extreme. It's extreme to want to steal from others but not to expect them to get upset. It's extreme to violate the Constitution or to support those who do it. It's extreme support starting wars. It's extreme to support oppression and slavery and to paint a happy face on them. It's extreme throw away everything great this nation was built on.

It is not extreme to fight in the defense of your country, your rights, your property, and your person from unwarranted attacks by those who would oppress you.

I'm an extremely reasonable, well-adjusted, intelligent, articulate, and well educated man but I'm not afraid to tell the truth, even when the truth is uncomfortable for some or isn't what they want to hear.

[inigo montoya] you keep using that word. I do not thin' it means what you thin' it means[/inigo montoya]