tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post6390816301376766145..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Quick Roundup 417Gus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-13675733369937456912009-03-31T06:19:00.000-06:002009-03-31T06:19:00.000-06:002) What's wrong with a "private monopoly" on money...<I>2) What's wrong with a "private monopoly" on money? It's entirely incompatible with the free market.</I><BR/><BR/>Only if backed by government force. What if the market decides to use nothing but bills from my bank, because they're backed by gold and nobody else has the sense to issue similar? Is THAT incompatible with capitalism? No.<BR/><BR/><I>In a free market, there are no legal tender laws ...</I><BR/><BR/>I thought we were talking about PORIVATE monopolies. You've already strayed into government force in this context.<BR/><BR/><I>3) Why is participating in anti-war rallies "an ominous sign"? Being anti-war doesn't make one a leftist; in fact, the anti-war position used to be associated with the Old Right. Even today the most consistent opposition to the Iraq war comes from libertarians and conservatives ... </I><BR/><BR/>Being against a war (as I am the non-war in Iraq) does not make one a leftist, and certainly, many non-leftists foolishly participate in anti-war rallies. <BR/><BR/>What's wrong with that? The same thing that would be wrong with participating in, say, an anti-Reagan rally with a bunch of communists, even though you are angry at Reagan for not cutting taxes ENOUGH. First, you're making it look like you support the wrong side. Second, picketing is hardly an effective way to change MINDS.<BR/><BR/>The fact is thet the majority of anti-war protesters are anti-American self-defense, and adding your voice to theirs may not make you a leftist, but it almost always makes you a useful idiot.<BR/><BR/><I>... war is the health of the state ...</I> <BR/><BR/>The state, libertarianism to the contrary, is not inherently bad. What protected us during WWII? The state.<BR/><BR/>War is an emergency, and emergency measures always come with the risk of abuse. This doesn't mean we should avoid war at all costs or support anarchy.<BR/><BR/><I>Read your history...</I><BR/><BR/>Read your etiquette and refrain from insulting me or I'll just not post anything else you say.<BR/> <BR/><BR/><I>As for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan having anything to do with protecting America... To those of us who grew up during the Cold War, wondering when the bombs might drop, it's nothing short of ludicrous to think of Iraq and Afghanistan as a threat. </I><BR/><BR/>Not opposing Islamic totalitarian states is a mistake, as is fighting a Vietnam=-like "war". We should have decimated Iran and Saudia Arabia by now and recovered their oil fields for the American and British corporations that rightfully owned them before they were nationalized in the fifties.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-676618519728067102009-03-30T22:15:00.000-06:002009-03-30T22:15:00.000-06:00I don't know much about "End the Fed", but I have ...I don't know much about "End the Fed", but I have some comments on what you wrote.<BR/><BR/>1) Yes, you're right that whether the Fed is private or governmental isn't the important issue. You're right that free-marketers shouldn't be complaining about "lack of Congressional oversight" and the fact that the Fed isn't taxed. The important point is that the Fed is a monopoly backed by government force. And THAT is entirely incompatible with the free market.<BR/><BR/>2) What's wrong with a "private monopoly" on money? It's entirely incompatible with the free market. In a free market, there are no legal tender laws; the market decides what is money, not the government. Individuals decide for themselves what they will use as money or accept as payment of debts. In a free market, you and I can stipulate in a contract that you will pay me in gold, or silver, or Brittney Spears memorabilia, for that matter. (FDR took away that freedom in the '30's when he declared contracts requiring payment in gold to be null and void.)<BR/><BR/>3) Why is participating in anti-war rallies "an ominous sign"? Being anti-war doesn't make one a leftist; in fact, the anti-war position used to be associated with the Old Right. Even today the most consistent opposition to the Iraq war comes from libertarians and conservatives (check out antiwar.com and The American Conservative).<BR/><BR/>As Randolph Bourne wrote, war is the health of the state. Read your history and study what happened to American freedoms during the Civil War, WWI, and WWII. These were all time of great expansion of federal power and diminution of individual liberties. For that matter, take a look at how the "war on terror" has been used as an excuse to shred the Constitution and destroy the 700-year-old right of Habeas Corpus.<BR/><BR/>As for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan having anything to do with protecting America... To those of us who grew up during the Cold War, wondering when the bombs might drop, it's nothing short of ludicrous to think of Iraq and Afghanistan as a threat.Kevin S. Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08328117147716688387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-54074979316201401162009-03-30T20:34:00.000-06:002009-03-30T20:34:00.000-06:00Well, Mo, Probably just getting the word out soone...Well, Mo, Probably just getting the word out sooner and to more people.<BR/><BR/>Matt, especially after SN's comment, that makes sense. I did hear the guy at the store talk on his cell once, and he sounded too educated to be the type of conservative I'd otherwise imagine lobbying for the end to the fed.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-82649065258701614692009-03-30T20:00:00.000-06:002009-03-30T20:00:00.000-06:00I actually know a few cats around Houston who wear...I actually know a few cats around Houston who wear these shirts. Including a fellow philosophy grad student. Of course, upon talking to him, I found out he was just the standard libertarian type... I somehow ended up on his Ron Paul for President e-mail list.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647603135214400838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-60899627275994111312009-03-30T19:03:00.000-06:002009-03-30T19:03:00.000-06:00what are ways to get more people involved in ediso...what are ways to get more people involved in edison hour or HAH hour?Monoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-28911562962428139202009-03-30T16:28:00.000-06:002009-03-30T16:28:00.000-06:00SN,Thanks for your concise debunkery. I am slightl...SN,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your concise debunkery. <BR/><BR/>I am slightly surprised, but only through through lack of familiarity, that this is a common myth among libertarians.<BR/><BR/>Very interesting, and very much worth keeping in mind whenever debating a libertarian, be that in hopes of persuading the libertarian himself or a more rational audience.<BR/><BR/>GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-40163447097145671832009-03-30T14:45:00.000-06:002009-03-30T14:45:00.000-06:00What!! You mean that the Fed is not a conspiracy h...What!! You mean that the Fed is not a conspiracy hatched by the Illuminati during their so-called hunting trip on <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jekyll_Island#Planning_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System" REL="nofollow">Jekyll Island</A>!! lol.<BR/><BR/>Here's a response I posted to a forum, when someone repeated the notion that the Fed is a private corporation:<BR/><BR/><I>The banks do not own the Fed in any substantial way. It does not matter that they contribute to the bank's capital. The bottom line is: control. If the government forces banks to give money, it is a tax. If the government then takes that money and gives it to an entity called the Fed, that is controlled by the government, it does not make that entity a bank-controlled entity. Even if the government calls the money "capital" and keeps it there "in the name of" the "contributing" banks, that still does not change its essential nature. Even if the government tells some of the bank CEOs to serve on the board, that does not change its essential nature.<BR/><BR/>There was a time when the local Fed-banks were a little more independent, listening a lot more to their local banks. Of these Feds, the New York Fed used to sometimes even call the shots over the Fed Board. However, this political tussle was finally won by the Fed Board, which is basically a government institution.<BR/><BR/>This has come up a bit, and I want to get into the detail because this is a recurring Libertarian fiction that people like Ron Paul also repeat.<BR/><BR/>If one steps back more broadly, one will often find that this is a typical way government works. They decide to intervene in some area. At first, businessmen fight the government off. Finally, the businessmen realize that they are not going to win the argument. So, instead, they get together and lobby about what the direction of policy ought to be. Sometimes, they even ask for the government to form some type of policy-making board to which they (the businessmen) can nominate members.<BR/><BR/>Libertarians often portray these as actions of monopolists who were trying to use government power for their business. This is definitely true in some cases. However, that is not the majority of the examples. More typically, the businessmen are not the prime-movers of such governmental action, but are trying to play defense as best they understand how. Call them pragmatic, but they're only reacting.</I>SNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03953992447839442060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-3608813133334993332009-03-30T14:39:00.000-06:002009-03-30T14:39:00.000-06:00And some friendly competition can be fun!And some friendly competition can be fun!Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-48153839145611318222009-03-30T12:11:00.000-06:002009-03-30T12:11:00.000-06:00Michelle Minton was apparently an officer of the J...Michelle Minton was apparently an officer of the Johns Hopkins Objectivist Club, and was at one point a subscriber to HBL. So in a way 'we' are competing with 'ourselves' as regards the Edison Hour vs. Human Achievement Hour question.<BR/><BR/>It's still a form of progress when the left hand doesn't recognize the right hand by name, though...Kyle Haighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14608497826478356055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-24082864336946290322009-03-30T11:59:00.000-06:002009-03-30T11:59:00.000-06:00I found Human Achievement Hour catchier, but think...I found Human Achievement Hour catchier, but think Edison Hour would be better, reason being that Human Achievement (and even Edison!) deserve more than an hour to be celebrated.Phoroneushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05875277758226860200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-47383245050165304702009-03-30T10:36:00.000-06:002009-03-30T10:36:00.000-06:00Thanks.And that last point is, in a nutshell, what...Thanks.<BR/><BR/>And that last point is, in a nutshell, what is almost always wrong with such efforts in general and the Libertarian Party in particular.<BR/><BR/>People will choose morality over practicality any time they see a conflict between the two. I can see altruistic, anti-capitalistic moral premises showing through the nicks in the gold plating here.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-13347873423218892462009-03-30T08:48:00.000-06:002009-03-30T08:48:00.000-06:00Gus,great points in "Will End the Fed end the Fed?...Gus,<BR/><BR/>great points in "Will End the Fed end the Fed?". <BR/>I always find it particularly tragic when an individual or group has some very valid premises that are mixed up with some really bad ones, i.e. philosophical inconsistencies, that make their case untenable and their fight in persuading people about the righteoness of their cause impossible as is the case with this particular group.Rational Educationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02520568540990573166noreply@blogger.com