The case against Dr. Paul

[dash]

The Soviet Union was a communist dictatorship corrupt to the gills. The introduction of socialist programs into the United States has caused great prosperity. This is a breathtakingly silly claim.

You're not aware of the corruption in the USA, then? I suppose you believe in the two party system. Open your eyes!

-Dave

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Does it? And anyway, when was the last time anyone invaded Sweden, Ireland or Switzerland anyway? Who does Denmark need defending from?

Before an American army was stationed in Europe.

And: If the US are so independently capable, why are they putting missile defences in the UK? Or building bases in Qatar?

Building empire. This is what Ron Paul and I are against.

Socialist countries are richer, happier, safer. The world is a better place when people cooperate. Adversarial individualism is a poor choice given the obvious benefits of cooperation and a sense of social cohesion.

Bloviation. Let me know how well you think Europe would be doing without America paying for their defense.

 

[volatile]

Roads: I'd support gas taxes if the money goes only to pay for roads and bridges. It's the perfect solution. Instead gas taxes go into the general revenue fund.

Right. Which seems to suggest, does it not, that the money is needed elsewhere? It's not like the government is greedily rubbing its hands together and stashing the spoils of its plunder under the mattress. If you hadn't noticed, actually, you're running a record budget deficit at the moment - there is not enough tax money being collected to pay for the things you, and your fellow citizens, want and need.

Police: Paid for by local + state government, as it should be.

Funded by taxes.

Schools: Paid for by local + state government. Federal funding is/should be negligible.

Funded by taxes.

Army: Paid for by federal government. That's all I want the federal government to do, defend the nation's borders.

Brilliant plan. So who funds the federal court, pays the federal politicians, pays for the TSA, the federal police, the Food Standards Authority, the drugs regulator etc. etc.?

If you want America to be a country, you need a great deal of things to be organised at the federal level. I agree that direct democracy and local accountability are important (see Switzerland for an example of how this works in practice), but local autonomy is not antithetical to socialist principles. Indeed, in some respects its what socialism is about (see, again, Switzerland).

If you want roads, schools, hospitals, clean water, safe food, safe medicines, and all the rest, you need to pay for them. This is necessarily done through taxation. The balance between local and federal control of the spending is a matter for debate, but the money has to come from somewhere - your pocket.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Funded by taxes.

You are mixing taxes, their various purposes, and their sources.

 

[dash]

While you run around screaming that the sky is falling, smart investors are buying real estate while the prices are low.


No, no country is going back to a gold standard Or silver. Too little precious metal chasing too many units of value.

Smart investors are avoiding real estate like the plague. The fall in housing prices hasn't even begun. There's nowhere to go but down, down, down from here. Or, on the other hand, the nominal prices can remain high, the government just devalues the currency. Everyone gets their happy pill.

There is always enough gold or silver to back currency. You just equate more dollars per unit of precious metal. I think it's something like $30,000 per ounce if gold backed the entire M3 money supply.

Fiat currencies, where the government is able to simply print paper willy-nilly, have always ended with the currency going to zero value. It's simply not possible to trust government not to abuse the power to devalue currency as a way of buying votes.

Dollars are IOU Nothings. They're held up by the collective faith of everyone holding them. If China, say, were to introduce a world currency backed by silver (meaning you could redeem the notes in silver) you'd see all the nations climbing on board, one by one.

There is so much you need to learn (or perhaps unlearn) about economics and history. Better hurry, the sky is falling.

-Dave

 

[volatile]

Before an American army was stationed in Europe.

Errrrm. Switzerland has not been invaded ever. Ireland has not been invaded since the English arrived. What does American bases in Europe have to do with it?

Building empire. This is what Ron Paul and I are against.

Hardly - you think the UK is part of the US empire? In any respect, if you're so mighty and powerful, you wouldn't need missile defences in Britain.

Bloviation. Let me know how well you think Europe would be doing without America paying for their defence.

Lets see how well America would be doing without Europe's help, too. Social co-operation, through NATO and the UN (Egads! Socialism!) is what has fostered peace in Europe and America, not the size of your arsenal. If it was a simple case of mine-is-bigger-than-yours, you wouldn't need missile defences in Europe, garrisons in the middle East and all the rest.

 

[volatile]

You are mixing taxes, their various purposes, and their sources.

No, I'm not.

If you want to live in a society, you need to pay taxes to fund its machinery. Whether these are collected and spent at a local or national level, they are still taxes. Indeed, it is possible to argue that if every single state had to do everything themselves, as Dash seems to want, taxes would increase.

Imagine how much it would cost if every state had to fund its own food standards bodies, or drug safety bodies, or infrastructure planning. Centralising things that are common for all citizens is cheaper, surely? Ever heard of economies of scale?

 

[dash]

Right. Which seems to suggest, does it not, that the money is needed elsewhere? It's not like the government is greedily rubbing its hands together and stashing the spoils of its plunder under the mattress. If you hadn't noticed, actually, you're running a record budget deficit at the moment - there is not enough tax money being collected to pay for the things you, and your fellow citizens, want and need.

I don't want social security. I don't want pork barrel projects that exist only to buy votes to keep politicians in power. I don't want the War In Iraq. I don't want the War On Drugs. The list goes on...

"Money needed elsewhere". I completely disagree with the term "needed".

You still believe all the propaganda. Wake up! Educate yourself. You're speaking of ideals, I'm speaking of reality.

-Dave

 

[Suddenly]

You're not aware of the corruption in the USA, then? I suppose you believe in the two party system. Open your eyes!

-Dave

Thinking the two are anywhere near equal is more or less a declaration that one has no real knowlege of history or sense of proportion. While the Soviet system itself led to corruption, a study of Russian history and culture in any depth leads to the conclusion that corruption is in fact a cornerstone of what it is to be Russian, and there will simply never be a government there that is not corrupt. The Soviet system made it worse. Adding socialist aspects to a capitalist system is a mite different than having a corrupt state involved in every aspect of life, a state with the simple power to make you disappear.

When libertarians equate this with things like the exigent circumstance exception to a warrant requirement and gitmo... well... this is the sort of thing they need to convince themselves they hold some true understanding that others lack.

I do believe in the two party system. It has worked quite well for decades. It has its downsides, but so does everything.

 

[WildCat]

There is always enough gold or silver to back currency. You just equate more dollars per unit of precious metal. I think it's something like $30,000 per ounce if gold backed the entire M3 money supply.

You realize that by doing this you just turn gold into a fiat currency, don't you?

 

[WildCat]

If China, say, were to introduce a world currency backed by silver (meaning you could redeem the notes in silver) you'd see all the nations climbing on board, one by one.

You might want to research what happened to Asian countries who had silver-backed currency in the 1880's.

And why Britain moved away from currencies backed by precious metals at about the same time.

 

[volatile]

I don't want social security.

So you want to live in a society where a rich country lets its poorest people starve and go homeless? A two-tier society?

I don't want pork barrel projects that exist only to buy votes to keep politicians in power. I don't want the War In Iraq. I don't want the War On Drugs. The list goes on...

Me either. But those things have nothing to do with Socialism. In fact, you'll note that the most socialist countries are also the most pacifist, and the most liberal on drugs (by and large).

You still believe all the propaganda. Wake up! Educate yourself. You're speaking of ideals, I'm speaking of reality.

So am I. Countries with high taxation and a strong sense of social cohesion are the best places to live, by objective measurement (health, security, wealth, perception of well-being, education etc. etc.). The reality is that successful societies are founded on collectivism, not individualism.

Ron Paul's ideology boils down to poisonous individualism, in which it's dog eat dog, every man for himself, and screw the next guy. I don't think that's a very appealing idea. Do you?

 

[volatile]

You realize that by doing this you just turn gold into a fiat currency, don't you?

I think that's lost on him, WildCat.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Errrrm. Switzerland has not been invaded ever. Ireland has not been invaded since the English arrived. What does American bases in Europe have to do with it?

Errrrm, that's not what we are talking about.

We are talking about the wars that have not happened because America is currently defending Europe.

Hardly - you think the UK is part of the US empire? In any respect, if you're so mighty and powerful, you wouldn't need missile defences in Britain.

Those would be defending Europe.

I sure wish the Europeans would pay for their own missiles.

Lets see how well America would be doing without Europe's help, too. Social co-operation, through NATO and the UN (Egads! Socialism!) is what has fostered peace in Europe and America, not the size of your arsenal. If it was a simple case of mine-is-bigger-than-yours, you wouldn't need missile defences in Europe, garrisons in the middle East and all the rest.

Why are you not answering the question as to how Europe would pay for its socialism if America was not defending.

 

[dash]

I think that's lost on him, WildCat.

Hey, you guys really argue well! I'm going to concede victory to you. You've won!

Bye now!

-Dave

 

[volatile]

Errrrm, that's not what we are talking about.

We are talking about the wars that have not happened because America is currently defending Europe.

What? That's nonsense.

Europe has not gone to war because of the European Union, NATO, the UN and other such intergovernmental cooperation. OMG! Socialism! Even the neutral nations, Switzerland, Iceland and Ireland, are all involved in different ways in these cooperative bodies.

If you get on, you don't need missiles. That's the lesson of recent European history.

Before WWI, Europe was constantly at each other's throats. Even with the protection of the mightiest military nations of the time, (Britain or France at various times), military conflict, invasion and war still occurred. Only since a fostered spirit of social unity has Europe been at peace. America has nothing to do with it.

Socialism lead to peace in Europe, and elsewhere. You said the Northern European countries, Canada and New Zealand were doing "poorly". By what measure?

Those would be defending Europe.

Errrm. No. The missile defence shield is to protect America. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6720153.stm). It needs to use radar info from British radar to detect missiles from North Korea and the like aimed at the US. It also plans to site actual launch sites in Poland, for similar reasons.

I sure wish the Europeans would pay for their own missiles.

We do, ta. Nevertheless, I don't see any external threats to Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland etc. anyway.

Why are you not answering the question as to how Europe would pay for its socialism if America was not defending.

What are you blathering on about? In what way is Europe able to pay for its socialism due to America's military arsenal?

 

[volatile]

Hey, you guys really argue well! I'm going to concede victory to you. You've won!

Bye now!

-Dave

Coward.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What? That's nonsense.

Europe has not gone to war because of the European Union, NATO, the UN and other such intergovernmental cooperation. OMG! Socialism! Even the neutral nations, Switzerland, Iceland and Ireland, are all involved in different ways in these cooperative bodies.

If you get on, you don't need missiles. That's the lesson of recent European history.

Before WWI, Europe was constantly at each other's throats. Even with the protection of the mightiest military nations of the time, (Britain or France at various times), military conflict, invasion and war still occurred. Only since a fostered spirit of social unity has Europe been at peace. America has nothing to do with it.

Socialism lead to peace in Europe, and elsewhere.

You are mistaken about history.

American armies have been in Europe much longer (over 60 years) than the EU, NATO (American supported), and the UN (American supported) have existed.

 

[dash]

Coward.

Mission accomplished, my avatar is appearing over here:

<-----------

-Dave
PS Seriously though, you ought to dig into economics a little. All is not as it seems! Three months ago I'd have been posting exactly what you have been writing. Whether gold and/or silver ever become monetary metals again, both are going to rise in value by a great deal. It's ongoing.

 

[volatile]

Mission accomplished, my avatar is appearing over here:

So what? If you're only here to post a really terrible avatar, rather than have productive discussions, will you be leaving the forum now?

PS Seriously though, you ought to dig into economics a little. All is not as it seems! Three months ago I'd have been posting exactly what you have been writing. Whether gold and/or silver ever become monetary metals again, both are going to rise in value by a great deal. It's ongoing.

Touche, Dave. Read some real economics (rather than conspiratorial nonsense) and actually use some common sense. Countries tried a gold standard, and they got rid of it for a reason. They have all been vastly more prosperous ever since.

There's a great thread here at the moment called "Federal Reserve Debunkers' Help Needed", in which people who know a lot about economics and history explain all this in tedious detail.